_____ Notes _____
The Players 1
The Vendor Perspective 2
Consortiums 2
End-Users 6
The Researchers 10
Bellcore 10
Bell-Northern Research 10
The Regulators 10
Canada 10
Standards Organizations 10
Selected Standards Organizations 11
International Standards Organizations: 14
National Standards Organizations: 16
The Problem of Standardization 16
ISDN Standardization Bodies 16
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - i
_____ Notes _____
THE PLAYERS
Standards are essential to networking, without them, there would be massive
incompatability problems. They form the basis of products and drive markets.
The global networking industry is worth billions of dollars. Revenues for
networking hardware and software in 1996 were $89 billion. Consequently
vendors that can shape standards to their technologies are the big winners.
―Ninety percent of the people [involved in
the IETF] used to come from research and
education. Only 10 percent were vendors.
Now the reverse is true,‖ — Scott Bradner, a
senior technical consultant at Harvard
University and director at IETF .
It‘s possible for the big players to hijack the standardization process and kill
off projects that give competitors an advantage or benefit users.
―Vendors will vote things down that aren‘t in
their products‘ interest,‖ — Elizabeth Adams,
managing director of the Network
Management Forum.
Rival factions have been able to strong-arm a standards body into signing off
on two competing specs. And some vendors can push standards through before
they‘re stable, forcing forklift upgrades for early implementers.
Robert Madge, chairman and chief executive officer of Madge Networks Inc.
(San Jose, Calif.), says it‘s not uncommon for switch vendors to wait until
competitors have cast features in silicon and then intentionally make changes
to a standard, forcing them to reforge their chips. ―It‘s a game vendors play,‖
he says.
And it‘s usually a game for the top guns, the ones with the financial clout to
swing decisions in their favor--typically by packing committees with their
delegates. Microsoft Corp. now sends 10 times as many representatives to
IETF meetings as it did two years ago. Some vendors also appear to be head-
hunting key individuals on standards committees, offering them jobs on the
basis of their influence.
As a result, some standards bodies have passed new bylaws that attempt to
curb undue vendor influence, few believe these efforts will do much good.
―These days standards have more to do with
how much the vendors are willing to spend
on participating than what is right or
technically workable,‖ ―I don‘t have a high
opinion of standards bodies.‖ — David
Kaufman, president of Desktalk Systems Inc.
(Torrance, Calif.)
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 1
The Players
_____ Notes _____
THE VENDOR PERSPECTIVE
Vendors can sometimes speed up the sandardization process. For example,
the ATM Frame Relay Forums created specifications which were simply
approved by official organizations like the IETF and IEEE. The ITU-T
indicates it now rolls out rules five times faster than in the past, because of
vendor assistance.
Vendor participation helps guarantee that standards are based on commercial
demand rather than elegant engineering.
―Having more vendor involvement is a
boon,‖ ―It helps ensure that standards closely
reflect the real-world requirements of the
people that use them.‖ — Bradner
In the past, standards were largely the work of government-sanctioned
organizations. And although vendors have always been involved in the
standards process now their influence is predominant. Consequently there are
two types of organizations working on standards: The official ones and the
vendor-driven groups.
In the U.S., a standards body is official if it‘s endorsed by ISO. Overseas,
government endorsement sets the official groups apart from vendor forums.
Thus, the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) set up ETSI on
behalf of European governments.
Everything else is a consortium, and there‘s a reason why there are now so
many of them.
―Consortia were started to drive market
awareness and promote interoperability. The
standards organizations don‘t promote
standards,‖ on the other hand ―Just about
anyone can start a consortium.‖ — Gary
Robinson, director of standards at Sun
Microsystems Inc.
CONSORTIUMS
Consortia help bring standards to life more quickly. A notable example is
100Base-T. Most of the spec was defined by the fast Ethernet Alliance, which
passed its recommendations along to the IEEE. The full spec was ratified in
two-and-a-half years.
In contrast, ANSI has spent over 10 years trying to complete FDDI (beginning
in 1984).
―Unlike fast Ethernet, where everything is defined in one document,‖ says Bob
Finke, deputy head of networking and telecommunications at Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley, Calif.), FDDI was split into many
documents--four of which are compulsory. ANSI published MAC (media
access control) in 1987; PHY (physical layer protocol) in 1988; and PMD
A5 - 2 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
(physical media dependent) in 1989. SMT (station management) wasn‘t
published until 1994.
―Because SMT is a mandatory part of the standard, the delay almost killed
FDDI,‖ says Karl Shimada, vice president of Rising Star Research (Lakewood,
Colo.).
Vendors are in close contact with the real world products. This reduces the
risk of creating specs that are too ambitious, complicated, or expensive. The
OSI standards from ISO are aclassic example of this problem.
ISO ―started with a blank sheet of paper and
tried to design something for an ideal world.
OSI is very elegant but impractical. There
was no commercial drive to get it done,‖ In
contrast, ―TCP/IP was invented by people
who wanted to communicate. That‘s why it
succeeded.‖ — Bill Pechey, chief
engineering officer for Europe at Hayes
Microcomputer Products Inc.
Unfortunately, consortia reduce much of the debate that goes on at official
standards bodies and shift it instead into a vendor-run forum, usually behind
closed doors. That reduces users‘ chances of having a say. The ATM Forum is
a good example: Voting rights are open only to principal members, and that
costs $10,000 a year. Users pay $1,500 to join ENR (End-User Network
Roundtable). But they can‘t vote. In 1995 the forum set up a liaison program
that lets end-user representatives attend technical sessions and market
awareness meetings and report back to ENR, which is allowed to submit
written comments.
―An open standardization process with no
closed doors would force vendors to be
honest,‖ — Tom Nolle, president of CIMI
Corp.
―It‘s absolutely true that we‘ve created a
strategy to increase our focus on
standardization,‖ ―Our customers want
interoperability across the board. The way to
do that is to engage early and often in the
standards process.‖ — Cornelius Willis,
group product manager of Internet platforms
at Microsoft.
Willis indicates that there also is a PR element to Microsoft‘s involvement.
―We will always be the Antichrist to some people, but standards will help us
convince others that we‘re just another corporation.‖
Cisco has good reason to be concerned with what happens at IETF meetings
since the group is in charge of IP routing specs. Cisco‘s market leadership in
large part is thanks to its proprietary routing technology--IGRP (Interior
Gateway Routing Protocol). But times have changed, and Cisco acknowledges
that it can‘t continue to dominate with a single-vendor technology. ―It‘s a
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 3
The Players
_____ Notes _____
different play now. Standards are now part of Cisco‘s market development
strategy,‖ says Don Listwin, senior vice president of marketdevelopment.
What‘s more, IGRP has a new challenger--IP switching from Ipsilon Networks
Inc. The new scheme could supplant IGRP on some parts of the network,
which gives Cisco a vested interest in shaping IGRP‘s successor. The solution
that it‘s championing is tag switching, which it has submitted to the IETF as a
proposed spec.
Cisco‘s tag-switching strategy is laid out clearly in an internal e-mail sent
February 3 by Tom Downey, director of product marketing for the core
business unit, to senior staff involved in work at the IETF. One of Cisco‘s
stated ―Goals/Objectives‖ is to ―... encourage customers who value standards
to wait on purchasing this technology until the standards are defined (and
hence not buy IP switching today).‖
It‘s a tactic that some industry observers think could work very well. ―By
promoting tag switching Cisco is very much a threat to Ipsilon,‖ says Kevin
Fong, general partner with Mayfield Fund (Menlo Park, Calif.), a venture
capital firm. ―It‘s a marketing tactic. Cisco is creating controversy and there‘s
now genuine confusion. It‘s very deliberate.‖
Like Microsoft, Cisco also is very concerned about its public image. Another
stated goal is to ―Be perceived as making forward momentum in the IETF tag
standards work, to counter claims that Cisco wants the standards to go slow.‖
But sending more reps doesn‘t always guarantee that a vendor can influence a
standards body in its favor. For example, the IETF requires ―general
consensus‖ to approve any standard. Consensus has been reached when no
objections are raised. Those who oppose a standard must justify their
objections with sound technical reasons. In the event of a standoff the chair of
the working group can designate a specific direction to follow--for instance,
choosing between two technical points that have stymied the effort.
Not all organizations work the same way. The IEEE, for example, allows those
who have attended three consecutive plenary or interim meetings to vote in
working groups--whether or not they‘re IEEE members. And there‘s no limit
to the number of delegates vendors can bus in.
Many in the industry believe that Hewlett-Packard Inc. (HP, Palo Alto, Calif.)
took advantage of the IEEE‘s open door policy to push its 100VG AnyLAN
technology onto the standards books--resulting in two 100-Mbit/s Ethernet
specs.
As mentioned, the IEEE 802.3 working group started on 100-Mbit/s Ethernet
in 1992. It had two proposals to consider: the one backed by HP and AT&T
Microelectronics is now known as 100VG; the other from Sun, Synoptics
(now Bay Networks Inc. [Santa Clara, Calif.]), and Grand Junction (now part
of Cisco) is 100Base-T.
The IEEE regularly has to choose between competing proposals. In fact, that‘s
one of the keys to the entire standards process: Technologies are debated and
decided on by ballot. The IEEE requires proposals to win 75 percent of the
vote before they can move on to the next stage in the standards process.
A5 - 4 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
Most observers agree that 100Base-T had far more industry support than
100VG. Despite that, when the 802.3 working group called for a vote, it ended
in a split decision: 70 percent favored 100Base-T; 30 percent, 100VG.
―HP stuffed the IEEE 802 committee with its
people,‖ — Doug Spreng, executive vice
president of interface products at 3Com
Corp.
―We‘re not going to send 50 or 80 people to
a meeting to pack it,‖ — Patricia Thaler,
principal engineer for LAN architectures and
standards at Hewlett-Packard Co.
Either way, the IEEE decided to compromise: Both standards were put
forward for ratification--and both were passed.
It turned out that two nearly identical standards were more than the market
could bear. 100VG has sold respectably in Europe but made only marginal
inroads in North America. HP has since abandoned its plans for a higher-speed
version, leaving current customers without a clear migration strategy.
―It would have been a lot easier if the IEEE had just come out with one
standard in the first place,‖ says Marcos Castallanos, network manager with
XL Group Inc. (Miami, Fla.), a flower importer. Castallanos shelled out for a
100VG hub but decided that 100Base-T was a better bet as prices started
coming down.
Even some HP employees think one standard makes more sense. ―It‘s
unfortunate that we wound up with two 100-Mbit/s specs,‖ admits Gary
McNally, general manager for Roseville Networks.
Some vendors aren‘t simply sending more delegates to meetings; they also
appear to be trying to hire folks who have the most pull with standards bodies.
Steve Waldbusser, one of the authors of RMON MIB (remote monitoring
management information base) and SNMP version 2, says that his role in net
management at the IETF played a big part in moving from academia to the
post of chief network architect at International Network Services (INS,
Mountain View, Calif.). Waldbusser is the former manager of network
development at Carnegie-Mellon University (Pittsburgh).
―Clearly this was a factor in INS hiring me,‖
―The time I put into writing MIBs and
participating on committees keeps INS in the
forefront. It means we‘ll be leaders in
standards I help write.‖ — Waldbusser
Fred Baker, a senior software engineer at Cisco and the chair of the IETF‘s
IESG (Internet Engineering Steering Group)--which oversees the entire task
force--has been approached by Microsoft headhunters. Did the job offer have
anything to do with Baker‘s position at the IETF? ―Sure,‖ he says. ―I‘m a
recognized person in the industry.‖
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 5
The Players
_____ Notes _____
Microsoft denies head-hunting on the basis of influence. ―We‘re aggressive
recruiters,‖ says Willis. ―We hire people because they‘re smart. It would be
ludicrous to hire someone because he or she is part of a pro bono standards
effort.‖
Vendors have two related reasons for investing in standards. First, standards
create a market. Second, vendors that can standardize their own technologies
can get a jump on the competition.
Standards also can be crucial for startups looking to win the backing of
venture capitalists.
―It‘s what the market wants,‖ says Terry Glarner, a consultant with Norwest
Venture Capital (Minneapolis). ―Apple is struggling in part because it wasn‘t
involved in standards.‖ He adds that being part of the standards process can be
the deciding factor between two otherwise identical startups.
But vendors have to spend money to make it. And when it comes to standards,
it takes a lot of cold cash. Anil Singhal, chief executive officer of Frontier
Software Development Inc. (Chelmsford, Mass.), says he spent $7,500
attending five standards meetings in 1996 (all in the U.S.). ―That doesn‘t
include my time,‖ he adds.
Some committees are far more costly: They meet more frequently and
overseas. Last year the ATM Forum met six times--once in Los Angeles;
Anchorage, Alaska; Orlando, Fla.; Baltimore; Montreux, Switzerland; and
Vancouver, Canada.
The IEEE also is pricey. ―A typical meeting costs around $2,000 to attend,
including the hotel and flight,‖ says Jim Carlo, chair of IEEE 802. ―But with
lost work time it‘s closer to $5,000 per meeting.‖
END-USERS
End-user companies face the same sorts of issues; they need to factor in the
cost of lost productivity while their highly paid IS professionals are away at
meetings. In many cases this far outweighs the more visible expenses of bed,
board, and Boeing 767. That helps explain why end-users are
underrepresented at standards meetings. On average, end-user corporations
make up less than 5 percent of the membership of most standards groups.
―I‘d rather spend more on staff or tools than pay to attend standards [efforts],‖
says Nitin Naik, director for support services with NASA Classroom of the
Future (Wheeling, W. Va.), a government program that demonstrates how
leading-edge technology can be used in schools.
It‘s the same story when it comes to overseas users. ―The process is still too
labor-intensive to permit even major users to participate,‖ says Nick White,
deputy chairman of Intug (International Telecommunications Users‘ Group)
and global network manager for Unilever PLC (London).
Corporate networkers who are interested in shaping standards sometimes run
into an attitude problem--at their own companies. ―There‘s this feeling that
A5 - 6 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
you‘re off on a boondoggle,‖ says Mike Erlinger, professor at Harvey Mudd
College (Claremont, Calif.) and a consultant for The Aerospace Corp. (El
Segundo, Calif.). He recalls an IEEE meeting planned for Cancun, Mexico. It
turned out that hotel and airfare were cheaper than in the U.S., but the meeting
was moved to a U.S. location because so many companies found it hard to
believe their engineers would get any work done in Mexico.
When end-users don‘t have enough say, it removes a potential safeguard
against vendor excesses.
―It‘s good when you have at least one major
user [participating in a standard],‖ ―It‘s a
sanity check. I can read the vendors the riot
act and tell them if this is a mistake.‖ He
continues, ―If I can‘t see a benefit to users,
then I know it shouldn‘t be in the standard.‖
— Lawrence Berkeley‘s Finke, IEEE 802.3z
gigabit Ethernet task force.
A good example of what can happen when there‘s not enough end-user
involvement can be seen in the history of the ill-fatedMIC (Management
Integration Consortium).
The consortium was founded in May 1994 with a simple goal: Get net
management software vendors together to agree on a standard way to define
data across their applications. If it had succeeded, the benefits would have
been huge. Console vendors would have had a way to promote their wares as
true platforms for third-party applications; application vendors would have
been able to easily port their products across multiple consoles, opening the
market to a wider range of applications; and users, above all, would have
gotten more control over their networks, enabling them to further their own
business interests.
But to achieve this aim, the leading net management platform vendors would
have had to expose the underpinnings of their operating systems to their chief
competitors. ―This would make it tough for platform vendors to maintain
proprietary solutions designed to promote their computing environments,‖
says Jill Huntington-Lee, vice president of marketing communications at
Micromuse (New York).
In January 1995, as the final draft of the MIC spec was being prepared, a
bomb fell: Executives at HP, IBM, Sun, and Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC,
Maynard, Mass.) published a joint letter of resignation from MIC. Without
their cooperation, the standard quickly went belly up.
―An HP employee told me that HP joined the
MIC in order to destroy it,‖ — an industry
source who requested anonymity.
Sun and IBM also were considered villains by some observers. ―I remember a
guy from IBM after we had one of the early MIC meetings,‖ recalls Desktalk‘s
Kaufman. ―Afterward he said, ‗What the MIC is doing is trying to define
something that‘s different from our infrastructure in Netview. So why are we
going to support it? We‘d have to rewrite our product.‘―
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 7
The Players
_____ Notes _____
The users were the real losers. ―It was a tragedy,‖ says Michael Emanuel, who
at the time was vice president of marketing at Network Managers (UK) Ltd.
(Guildford, Surrey, U.K.), a MIC member. He now works as a product
manager at Microsoft.
More end-user involvement also might have averted a forklift upgrade for
early implementers of ATM (who thought they were following the rules). The
ATM Forum originally came up with three service classes: CBR (constant bit
rate), UBR (unspecified bit rate), and VBR (variable bit rate). Vendors
implemented these in hardware and some net managers deployed the products.
Subsequently, the ATM Forum released a fourth service class: ABR (available
bit rate). It got a mixed reception--for good reason. On the one hand the
nespec made more efficient use of bandwidth. On the other, it forced users of
first-generation switches to scrap their gear and buy new boxes.
One of the reasons that ABR was not offered along with the other three
services was a lengthy battle between backers of two opposing flow control
schemes: rate-based and credit-based. Ultimately, the rate-based camp won
out, but not without bitter infighting.
Some believe the ATM Forum‘s problems in trying to reach a consensus
related more to vendors‘ product plans and development than technical debate.
―It was a brutal war because some vendors already had switch
implementations that would be hard to change,‖ says Mike Goguen, then chair
of the PNNI (private network-to-network interface) working group who now
works for Sequoia Capital (Menlo Park, Calif.), a venture capital firm. ―They
poured considerable dollars into development and wanted the spec to go their
way.‖
Flow control isn‘t the only ATM spec that has created a problem. When the
forum ratified UNI (user network interface) 3.1, it wasn‘t backward-
compatible with UNI 3.0 (UNI is a protocol that defines signaling between
ATM end-stations and switches). Thus, equipment implementing the different
specs couldn‘t communicate.
Vendors had to scramble to release UNI 3.1 software, and corporate
networkers were forced to upgrade their networks all at once (rather than roll
out UNI 3.1 in stages). Needless to say, this didn‘t win the ATM Forum any
friends among vendors or net managers.
George Dobrowski, chair of the ATM Forum‘s worldwide technical
committee, admits the UNI interoperability problem. ―With hindsight we know
this was wrong.‖
Both users and vendors have openly criticized the ATM Forum for delivering
―unstable specs.‖
―The ATM Forum forced users to buy into half-baked technology before it had
any business value,‖ says CIMI‘s Nolle. As a result, the market for ATM
froze: Users stopped buying products; vendors stopped implementing the
latest specs--ironically enough, these are precisely the sorts of things the ATM
Forum had been set up to prevent.
A5 - 8 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
The Forum seems to have learned its lesson. This past June it signed off on the
Anchorage Accord, which lays out a foundation for ATM that ensures all
future additions will be backward-compatible.
The ATM Forum is not the only standards body looking to put its house in
order. The Network Management Forum has made changes to ensure that there
is a balance between users and vendors on its board of trustees.
Since the 100VG debacle, the IEEE has changed its rules to allow the chair to
take a ―one-vote-per-company‖ ballot. But Jeff Thompson, current chair of the
802.3 working group, indicates ―the end result is very rarely different.‖ It‘s
also now easier to dismiss a chair with a no-confidence vote.
And the IETF recently revised its rules to prevent vendors from derailing
standards either by refusing to license patented technologies or by charging
too much for licenses. It made the change in the wake of an incident a few
years back involving Motorola Inc. (Schaumburg, Ill.).
The IETF was trying to define a way to standardize compression over PPP
(point-to-point protocol) connections. When the final draft was being readied,
Motorola announced it had a patent on the technology and declared it was not
interested in licensing it, according the IETF‘s Baker.
Motorola denies this. ―The standard was developed by a group in which
Motorola was not participating. When we learned about it, we told the IETF
that we had a patent and would license on reasonable terms,‖ says Ed Roney,
vice president and director of standards and technology transfer.
But Baker is adamant. ―Motorola was using the process of the IETF for
proprietary advantage.‖ It took two years to sift through the various issues
involved in this dispute and set a new IETF policy for handling intellectual
property in the IETF. This is spelled out in RFC 2026 Section 10.
Until this incident, the IETF had relied on a ―tear-off‖ contract that Baker
acknowledges was too elementary to cover the scope of intellectual property
agreements for large companies. ―We didn‘t document the process well
enough in the past,‖ he says.
And intellectual property rights still dog the standards process. A spec for 56-
kbit/s modems is stalled in committee at the ITU-T.
―Intellectual property, not technology, may
become the deciding factor in this situation,‖
―Neither side has been forthcoming with their
technologies,‖ — Ken Kretchmer, TR30
committee of the TIA .
Even with all the changes at various standards bodies, there‘s no doubt that
vendors still have an almost total lock on the standards process worldwide. It
remains to be seen whether their influence will ultimately be a force for good
or for bad. On the one hand, net managers should reap the benefit of speedily
developed, commercially viable specs. On the other, their interests may
sometimes end up taking second place to those of the vendors.
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 9
The Players
_____ Notes _____
THE RESEARCHERS
BELLCORE
Bellcore is the research and development arm of the RBOCs. It is also a key
player in the establishment of international standards. It for example, is the
publisher of the set of about 50 TR† s collectively called ‗National ISDN-
One‘. These standards include ones produced by other organizations such as
the 2B1Q protocol defined by ANSI.
BELL-NORTHERN RESEARCH
This organization is owned jointly by Bell Canada and Nortel [formerly
Northern Telecom].
THE REGULATORS
CANADA
There are more than 70 carriers in Canada. Ownership ranges from the private
sector to cities, provinces and even the federal government.1
STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS
Standards agencies are composed of representatives from various special
interest groups including manufacturers, operating companies, research labs,
government agencies, and others. Consequently they are inherently quite
political and a consensus is frequently difficult to achieve.2 Standards bodies
are often looked at with disdain by those who must implement the results of
their deliberations.
In spite of these difficulties, standards organizations are essential to the well-
being of modern society and are taking on a greater relevance in today‘s
world. Major corporations who once could create de facto standards with
impunity, are now having a very difficult time doing so.
† Technical References
1 Telecom 91 Update: Four Years hat Changed the World, Data
Communications, October 1991
2 ISDN: Some Current Standards Difficulties, Telecommunications, June 1991
A5 - 10 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
SELECTED STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS
Organization: AIW (APPN Implementors Workshop)
URL: http://www.raleigh.ibm.com/app/aiwhome.htm
Focus: APPN and SNA
Type: Vendor consortium
Membership: 45 vendors and consultants
Meetings: U.S.
User Input: none
Organization: ANSI (American National Standards Institute)
URL: http://www.ansi.org
Focus: LANs and WANs
Type: Standards body
Membership: 1,400 companies, organizations, government agencies, and
institutions
Meetings: U.S.
User Input: No formal channel
Organization: ATM Forum
URL: http://www.atmforum.com
Focus: ATM
Type: Vendor
Membership: 880 members (280 primary and 600 auditing), including
vendors, carriers, and consultants; 155 user companies in End-User
Network Roundtable (ENR)
Meetings: Worldwide
User Input: End-User Network Roundtable established 1993
Organization: DMTF (Desktop Management Task Force)
URL: http://www.dmtf.org
Focus: PC management
Type: Vendor consortium
Membership: 100 companies, nearly all vendors
Meetings: U.S.
User Input: No official procedure
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 11
The Players
_____ Notes _____
Organization: ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute)
URL: http://www.etsi.fr
Focus: Telecommunications
Type: Standards body
Membership: 410 full member companies (includes 27 user outfits), 25
associate members, and 84 observers
Meetings: Europe
User Input: Encourages user input by offering membership discounts
and operating a special forum
Organization: Frame Relay Forum
URL: http://www.frforum.com
Focus: Frame relay
Type: Vendor consortium
Membership: 300 members (equipment vendors and carriers)
Meetings: Worldwide
User Input: No formal channel
Organization: GEA (Gigabit Ethernet Alliance)
URL: http://www.gigabit-ethernet.org
Focus:
Type: Vendor consortium
Membership: Gigabit Ethernet 85 members (equipment vendors and
consultants)
Meetings: U.S.
User Input: No formal channel
Organization: IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers)
URL: http://www.ieee.org
Focus: Networks
Type: Standards body
Membership: 320,000 individual members from 147 countries
Meetings: Worldwide
User Input: No formal channel
Organization: IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)
URL: http://www.ietf.org
Focus: Internet and related technologies
Type: Standards body
Membership: Will not disclose membership; more than 2,000 people
attended December meeting; vendors now heavily represented
Meetings: U.S. and Canada
User Input: No formal channel
A5 - 12 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
Organization: ISO1 (International Organization for Standardization)
URL: http://www.iso.ch
Focus: Information technology
Type: Standards body
Membership: National standards institutes from 118 countries
Meetings: Worldwide
User Input: Indirect user input via national standards institutes
Organization: ITU-T
URL: http://www.itu.ch
Focus: Telecommunications
Type: Standards
Membership: 187 governments and 400 other members (mostly PTTs,
carriers, VAN operators, and vendors)
Meetings: Worldwide
User Input: Some countries invite user comments when formulating
positions
Organization: Network Management Forum
URL: http://www.nmf.org
Focus: Net management
Type: Vendor consortium
Membership: 200 members; roughly 80% areelcos or their suppliers
Meetings: Worldwide
User Input: Via User Advisory Council (about members)
Organization: OMG (Object Management Group)
URL: http://www.omg.org
Focus: Object-oriented software
Type: Vendor consortium
Membership: 700 members, nearly all vendors
Meetings: Worldwide
User Input: Via End-User Special Interes Group (20 to 50 members)
Organization: The Open Group
URL: http://www.opengroup.org
Focus: Open systems
Type: Vendor consortium
Membership: 450 member companies, including 90 vendors
Meetings: Quarterly meetings: 3 in U.S., 1 international
User Input: Via Customer Council (150 representatives)
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 13
The Players
_____ Notes _____
Organization: OURS (Open User Recommended Solutions)
URL: http://www.ours.org
Focus: Infomation technology
Type: Vendor consortium
Membership: 40 members, roughly 50% vendors
Meetings: U.S.
User Input: Group itself is intended as a user liaison with vendors
Organization: SMDS Interest Group
URL: http://smds-ig.org; ftp.casc.com
Focus: SMDS
Type: Vendor consortium
Membership: 20 service providers, 8 user companies
Meetings: Worldwide
User Input: Via SMDS User Group
Organization: W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
URL: http://www.w3.org
Focus: World Wide Web
Type: Vendoronsortium
Membership: About 160 members, including 135 vendors
Meetings: Worldwide
User Input: No official procedure
ISO‘s information technology standards are created in conjunction with
the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission).
APPN = Advanced Peer-to-Peer Networking
SMDS = Switched Multimegabit Data Service
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS:
• ITU - International Telecommunications Union. This is an agency of
the UN. Until March 1/93, it consisted of 4 groups: the General
Secretariat, IFRB, CCIR, and CCITT. It was then reorganized into three
sectors: Radio Communications [formerly IFRB and CCIR],
Telecommunications Standardization [formerly CCITT and now
designated ITU-T], and Telecommunications Development [new].
• IFRB - International Frequency Registration Board. This administered
international radio frequency assignments and organized the WARC†
conferences. The two most recent conferences were in 1987 and 1992.
This is now part of the Radio Communications Sector of the ITU.
• CCIR – Consultative Committee on International Radio. This agency
consists of a number of groups responsible for wireless standards
† World Administrative Radio Conference
A5 - 14 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
including the technical aspects of spectrum usage and interworking.
One of the more significant working groups in this agency is IWP8 †
which has been developing FPLMTS†. This is now part of the Radio
Communications Sector of the ITU.
• CCITT - Comité Consultatif Internationale de Telegraphiqué et
Telephoniqué. This agency consists of a number of study groups which
make recommendations for wired telecommunications networks. The
scope of this includes: signaling protocols, registration procedures, and
numbering plans. This is now part of the Telecommunications
Standardization Sector of the ITU [ITU-T].
• IEC - International Electrotechnical Commission
• ISO - International Standards Organization. This is a voluntary, non-
treaty organization comprised of representatives from other standards
bodies. It is responsible for the 7 layer OSI model and works closely
with CCITT.
WARC
The WARC conferences bring together various agencies from throughout the
world to try and resolve common issues in radio administration. The
conferences are held whenever they are required and may last several months.
It is to be expected that each region will have a slightly different perspective.
These differences arise because of population distribution and density,
historical spectral deployment, and commercial interests.
At the moment there appears to be a slight difference of opinion as to the use
of the existing spectrum in the 2 GHz band. The US prefers to use it for LEO
mobile satellite services while the Europeans would prefer to use it for
FLMPTS.
MULTI-NATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS:
• CEPT - European Post and Telegraph Committee
• ECMA - European Computer Manufacturing Association. This is a small
trade organization which contributes to ISO and issues its own
standards.
• RACE - R & D in Advanced Communications for Europe. This agency
is composed of 25 organizations which are attempting to integrate
UMTS†, PSTN and broadband systems.
† Interim Working Party 8
† Future Public Land Mobile Telecommunications Systems
† Universal Mobile Telecommunications Services
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 15
The Players
_____ Notes _____
NATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS:
• ANSI - American National Standards Institute. Consists of
manufactures, carriers, and users of telecommunications equipment. It
is the US voice in ISO.
• IEEE - Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. A professional
society which contributes to ANSI and issues its own standards such as
IEEE-802.6
• EIA - Electronic Industries Association. A manufacturing trade
organization which contributes to ANSI and issues RS-232-C.
• NBS - National Bureau of Standards. This is a government agency
which issues standards for equipment sold to the US government.
THE PROBLEM OF STANDARDIZATION
The telecommunications needs of various parts of the globe can vary
dramatically. This is often due to the distribution of population and economic
well being of the country. However, the direction that telecommunications
takes is also dependant upon national pride, and corporate advantage.
Consequently, it may take years for suitable standards to emerge, and when
they do, they‘re often so vague that incompatabilities and inconsistances are
inevitable.
The problems created by a lack of cooperation is well seen by the painfully
slow deployment of ISDN.
ISDN STANDARDIZATION BODIES
• CCITT
Study Group VII defining user to network requirements for public
data networks
Study Group XI responsible for Signaling System # 7
Study Group XVIII
• ISO
Technical Committee 97, Subcommittee 6
• CEPT
• ECMA
Technical Committee 32
• ETSI [European Telecommunications Standards Institute]
• ANSI
ECSA [Exchange Carriers Standards Association]
T1D1 Subcommittee
• Bellcore, the research group of the RBOC [Regional Bell Operating
Companies]
Each one of these organizations has its own unique economic and technical
concerns. Consequently, there is no universally accepted and mutually
A5 - 16 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
compatible version of ISDN today.3 This has been identified as one of the
chief obstacles to the deployment of ISDN in the public network.
This has a negative impact on high volume end-users as can be seen in the
following comment:
―The single most important thing that must
happen is for Nortel and AT&T, the two
largest manufacturers of switching equipment
in North America, to come to an agreement
on ISDN protocols and put it into
production‖4
To overcome the problem, COS [Corporation for Open Systems International]
has announced a major agreement among several of the large equipment
vendors, to standardize the signaling protocols between CPE and the
network.5 Members of this group include: AT&T, Apple, Bell Atlantic,
Bellcore, Boeing, DEC, GM, IBM, Kodak, Motorola, Nortel, NYNEX,
Siemens Stromberg-Carlson, and Southwestern Bell. The plan is to base the
standard on Bellcore‘s technical specification known as National ISDN-1 [SR-
NWT-001937].
The difficulties associated with this approach is already beginning to be
recognized by some:
―The problem [with the COS announcement]
is that they‘re trying to do it outside of the
classic standards bodies because they‘re too
slow. But unless everyone who is relevant is
included, all that‘s accomplished is the
development of multiple standards.‖6
It is expected that ISDN services afforded by
National ISDN-1, may become widely
available by late 1992. However, ―the
regional Bell holding companies have said
that it will be another four to five years
before ISDN is truly a ubiquitous national
service‖.7
3 Integrated Digital Services Networks - Architectures/Protocols/Standards,
Hermann J.Helgert, pub. Addison Wesley, 1991
4 Lonn Henrichsen, Chief of Telecommunications in the Office of the
Secretary, Transportation Department of the US Federal Government, quoted
in Government Computer News June 11, 1990
5 Nationwide ISDN: One Step Closer to Reality?, Telecommunications,
November 1990
6 Mary Johnston Turner of Northeast Consulting, quoted in
Telecommunications April 1991
7 Newsfront, Data Communications, April 1991
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 17
The Players
_____ Notes _____
No wonder that some have said ―ISDN is not
dead, it‘s just sleeping‖.8
This inability to agree seems to affect all sectors in the communications
industry. For example, each equipment vendors is taking slightly different
approach implementing SMDS. The IEEE 802.6 protocol must be used at all
external interfaces of SMDS equipment however, QPSX Communications and
Siemens are also using it as their internal switching protocol whereas AT&T is
not. It‘s using a proprietary one.9
Herein lies the source of the major problems limiting the deployment of
advanced technology and services, particularly as it impacts on CPE:
• The lack of will to develop sensible standards
• Industrial protectionism sponsored by proprietary protocols
SECTION II: ROLE OF STANDARDS
Standards serve several critical functions. First, standardization can lower the
costs of production through increasing returns to scale and through learning by
doing. Second, by ensuring compatibility, standardization increases the
number of agents with whom an individual can communicate. Finally,
standards are promulgated to ensure that the equipment provided meets certain
requirements. Without agreed-on requirements, equipment could be rendered
useless almost as soon as it is deployed. (Paetsch, 1993).
Through a variety of mechanisms, one standard may come to dominate the
market. There are no guarantees that the dominant standard is the technically
superior standard. There are generally two ways by which an inferior standard
can come to dominate the market. The first method is the "snowball effect" or
"the bandwagon". The more users choose a particular standard, the better it
looks in relation to alternative standards. Through random selection by users,
one standard will become bigger and more widely used (larger market share).
The second method is the market's discomfort with uncertainty. If two
competing standards are available but their value is not clearly understood,
then an early adoption of one over the other could lead to the choice of an
inferior standard out of a simple need to reduce uncertainty. (Information
Technology Standards: The Economic Dimension, Publication #25, OECD
1991, pp. 42-43)
An effective standard setting process must address certain key issues.
Standards should codify established practice and should ensure reasonable
quality. Thus a standard is only issued after the requirements have been proven
through practical experience including field trials. Standardization is a slow
8 ISDN - Not Dead, Just Sleeping, Data Comm Focus/Finnerman, Business
Communications Review
9 SMDS: The Beginning of WAN Superhighways. Data Communications, April
1991
A5 - 18 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
process that must take into account the investment in pre-standard equipment
to ensure the stability of the standard. In the rapidly changing fields of
technology, many standards experience early obsolescence through this
evolutionary process. During this evolutionary period, a proprietary system
may emerge and gain dominance thus becoming a "de facto" standard. This
may result in a longer term disadvantage to industry and users.
Some experts assert that standards should define the direction of future
development and that very limited constraints should be applied sufficiently
early to ensure the compatibility of emerging systems. The standard-setting
process should allow the user a choice based on cost and quality instead of
having to judge between competing systems of different technical design. The
dangers of this approach are that without a full scale field trial, untried
specifications may be unsound. While early standardization may discourage
further innovation, experimental standards allow for the confidence to be
gained in the specification which are eventually standardized. ["Trends of
Change in Telecommunications Policy," #13, OECD, 1987, pp. 165-66]
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
In establishing a position with regards to international standards, policy
makers must assess several needs. These are outlined below. Pace of
Standardization: The main argument against complete standardization is lost
variety. Standards can be kept alive in the laboratories, but not in the market
place. By keeping several standards alive in the R&D arena, policy makers can
insure that if the dominant standard in the market proves inferior, there are
several more in the labs awaiting field trail. This can reducing the switching
costs. By slowing down the standardization process to encourage the search
for information about novel standards, the policy maker can help deter the
adoption of the wrong standards by the market.
Extended Agendas: In influencing the standard-setting process, the policy
maker may have a broader agenda. This agenda may include promoting the
domestic standard on the world market.
Keeping Up: Every standard is part of a technology complex rather than a
single technology. A standard may be obsolete by the time it is chosen. For
example, ten years ago nuclear power was considered a very bad way of
generating electricity. In the 1990s if global warming is a serious a problem as
is predicted, nuclear power may become a more attractive technology after all.
These uncertainties make standards adoption very challenging for policy
makers. (#25, OECD 1991, pp. 46-49)
Search for Innovative Technologies: Consumers are generally unwilling to
rigorously search for the best technology. The incentive to use the technology
with the most immediate payoff outweighs the more forward looking work of
R&D and the search for more information. This suggests a positive role for
policy makers in supporting strategic research. Strategic research has the
advantage of not being necessarily associated with a particular standard. It can
also have the benefit of reducing uncertainty about the standards before they
reach the market.
Future Applications: Once a standards has been introduced to the market,
consumers determine whether it is successful or not. This suggests that a
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 19
The Players
_____ Notes _____
market can influence the adoption of an inferior standard from the point of
view of future applications. It is the role of a policy maker to understand the
future applications and the group of consumers who will be able to take
advantage of these applications. The problem is determining which standard
has the greater future potential.
Compatibility: Consumers generally care about future compatibility of existing
standards. It is the role of the policy maker to find early adopters who can
form a user base to help a standard along a learning curve. There is a conflict
between the benefits of early adoption and the risk of future incompatibilities.
Technological innovation sometimes requires the abandonment of previous
standards in favor of a new approach.
SECTION III: INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS BODIES
Source: The Internet Society.
A series of international bodies have been created to deal with the growing
international complexities brought on by technological advances in the fields
of telecommunications, electronics, and information systems. One of the most
significant of these bodies that is still playing a critical role in shaping
telecommunications standards is the International Telecommunications Union
(ITU). The ITU was formed at the Telegraph and Radiotelegraph Conference
in Madrid in 1932. It was created in an effort to concentrate the regulation and
coordination issues concerning radio, telephone, and telegraphy. In 1947, in
Atlantic City, the ITU was reorganized and incorporated into the United
Nations organization as a specialized agency (Paetsch, 1993). See note
By 1993, the ITU included 166 member countries; more than 300
nongovernmental agencies such as private operating companies; and scientific,
industrial, and international organizations. A Convention serves as the legal
structure of the ITU. This Convention is revised by the Plenipotentiary
Conference which meets every six to eight years to decide on purposes,
structures, functions, and general provisions related to telecommunications.
Because the ITU has no jurisdiction over sovereign countries, the
Plenipotentiary Conference is structured as a treaty-level meeting. For the
decisions of the Conference to be binding, all ITU member countries must
ratify the revised Convention. The ratifying countries are then obliged to sign
the provisions into national law (Paetsch, 1993).
The ITU also holds periodic World and Regional Administrative Conferences
such as the World Administrative Telephone and Telegraph Conference
(WATTC), the World Administrative Radio Conferences (WARC), and the
Regional Administrative Radio Conferences (RARC). The WARCs in
particular are important for the wireless communication industry. These
conferences result in revised radio regulations that are annexed to the
International Telecommunication Convention (Praetsch, 1993). At the 1992
World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92), held in Malaga-
Torremolinos, Spain, representatives endorsed the concept of "universal
personal communications" with both terrestrial and satellite components.
WARC-92 also allocated spectrum for Mobile Satellite Service in the L-band
(1500- 1700 MHz), thereby giving global PCS ventures the necessary
A5 - 20 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
legitimacy to move ahead with deployment plans (Telecommunications,
December 1993)
There are also five permanent organs of the ITU: the General Secretariat, the
International Frequency Board (IFRB), the International Radio Consultative
Committee (CCIR), the International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative
Committee (CCITT), and the Telecommunications Development Bureau
(BDT). As the consultative committees, the CCITT and CCIR adopt thousands
of technical and operational standards to ensure network compatibility. These
consultative committees form study groups that issues recommendations on
specific technical problems. Because these recommendations are informal and
do not require treaty-level adoption, their effectiveness depends on the
cooperation of the member countries. The CCITT manages the non radio study
groups, including groups that are concerned with the design and
standardization of ISDN, broadband ISDN, and intelligent networks. The
CCIR is responsible for studying technical and operating issues in order to
standardize telecommunications on a global basis (Paetsch, 1993).
In recent years, there has been a great deal of criticism leveled at the ITU's
standard-setting process. Critics have charged that its process for approval of
standards is too cumbersome and time-consuming. ITU's role as the dominant
international standard-setting body has been seriously called into question.
While national government telecommunications operators support a prominent
role for ITU, other countries and user groups argue against too strong of a role
the ITU on the grounds that it could adversely affect competition. While the
debate continues over the role of the ITU and who should have input into the
ITU standard-setting process, regional efforts at standard-setting have
accelerated. Some analysts have suggested that standards will be increasingly
influenced by regional organizations (Paetsch, 1993). These regional standard-
setting efforts are discussed in greater detail below.
In addition to the ITU, two other organizations play a role in international
standard-setting. The International Standards Organization (ISO) is a non-
governmental group formed in 1947 to promote the development of
standardization in all fields except electronic engineering. The ISO is
organized into technical committees. Technical committees on
telecommunications and information exchange, interconnection of equipment,
and integrated circuit cards should influence the telecommunications market.
The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) was established in 1904
to promote electronic standards ensure reliability and compatibility of
equipment. In 1993 there were 82 technical committees of the IEC relating to
telecommunications (Wallenstein, 1989).
EUROPEAN PCS SCENARIOS
EUROPE
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE IN EUROPE
With the exceptions of Britain and Sweden, telecommunications industries in
Europe have been traditionally dominated by Postal Telegraph and
Telephones (PTT) government agencies and domestic manufacturers. Because
of the hegemony of the PTTs, the domestic telecommunications industry was
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 21
The Players
_____ Notes _____
characterized by excessive protectionism, lack of specialization and
economies of scale, burdensome regulation in customer premises equipment,
and high prices (Paetsch, 1993).
As a general case, one of the most effective obstacles that the PTTs set to
private involvement was the refusal to connect private networks to the public
systems. In those cases where they did provide the services, PTT's charged
customers on a highly priced volume basis and only data traffic was allowed.
First liberalization steps were given in the early 1980s with the arrival of the
telex retailers to the UK. The idea allowed customers from other European
countries to take advantage of the somewhat cheaper international rates from
and to the UK by using it as a telecommunications hub. In addition the British
Telecommunication Act of 1981 liberalized customer premises equipment and
gave users more autonomy on their leased lines usage, including the possibility
of selling unused portions.
In 1984, the European Union attempted to establish a cohesive
telecommunications policy by enacting the Council Recommendation of
November 1984. It advised member countries to "stop the fragmentation of the
European market, reduce prices, and expand the market." This initiative was
conducive to the publication in 1987 of what constituted one of the most
influential steps towards liberalization in telecommunications sector in
Europe: the Green Paper on Telecommunications.
The Green Paper of 1987 intended to promote discussion on liberalization,
customer premise equipment, and networks deployment oriented towards a
market structure that would benefit users with better and cheaper technologies.
Its effect was recognized as an important strategic contribution to the general
unification efforts that were to be consolidated by 1992 with the European
Community. Although limited in scope, the paper emphasized the importance
access provisions to private companies and interconnection between countries.
In addition, it proposed a phased relaxation on customer premises equipment
regulation. It also recommended the separation of regulatory and operational
functions, aiming for fairer licensing allocation procedures. Recognizing the
crucial role of standards formulation, the paper recommended the creation of
the European Telecommunication Standard Institute (ETSI) (Paetsch, 1993).
The Green Paper also focused on the opening of competition in the value-
added services. The decision of the European Commission in 1989 to
introduce a Directive that would revoke the exclusive rights of PTTs to
provide services other than voice created enormous controversy. As a result,
the Commission had to enforce its decision, particularly in more conservative
countries (France, Greece, Portugal and Spain) based on Article 90 of the
treaty of Rome, by which the Commission was entitled to impose directives to
individual countries when they refused to comply.
The need for the introduction of Personal Communication Services in Europe
was nurtured by two major assumptions: first, the rapid growth of users in the
cellular phone system generated fear in the industry that the system would run
out of capacity too soon. Second, PCN was conceived to be used mainly by
pedestrians who have particular needs regarding size, weight, functionality,
quality, and cost of the service. The way PCN has evolved in Europe has
determined three differentiated categories: cordless, cellular, and hybrid
A5 - 22 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
systems. The differences between cordless and cellular are mainly cell size,
transmission power and codec complexity.
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT IN EUROPE
With the enactment of the Mobile Green Paper, the European Commission
took a step toward a more cohesive policy framework in the European Union.
It was said that mobile telephony was particularly significant for the European
Union for it fits the concept of freedom of movement for people, goods,
services, and capital in which the Union operates.
The goals of the European Commission with regards to mobile
communications can be synthesized in the following points:
• facilitate the development of a Union-wide market for mobile services
• define a common framework for mobile services infrastructure, the
development of networks, and the supply of terminals
• promote personal communication services towards a mass oriented
market
• maintain links with other markets and organisms that promote
international standards that foster innovation
The Commission is particularly sensitive to define the roles of other European
telecommunications organizations and it is committed to find channels of
collaboration with them. A special emphasis was given to the result of the
World Administrative Radio Conference help in 1992 in Spain, where future
frequency allocation for mobile services was discussed. The Union is taking
part of negotiations regarding telecommunications services provision within
GATT members.
The UK was the first country to conceptualize a Cordless Personal
Communications Network. It was originally based on the cellular phone
system and the idea was to consider a second-generation of cordless
equipment to replace the first-generation that was already in use (cordless
phones used at home and office settings). A manufacturer extended this
concept and used a technology known as CT2 to install base stations
(telepoints) throughout the country. As a result, owners of CT2 were able to
connect to the phone network from certain areas of coverage. The concept was
then expanded so that a pager could also be integrated to the telepoint handset.
By doing this, the telepoint user could be alerted about incoming calls.
Because the standard definition process during this period was somewhat
anarchical, non-compatible CT2 systems were developed. At this point the
British Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) proposed a common
interface, but some manufacturers did not embraced the initiative. In order to
enforce its standardization concept, the DTI issued license requirements for
telepoint operators, that included compliance to Common Air Interface (CAI)
standards by the end of 1990. In addition, they were forced to establish inter
roaming capabilities among their systems. Eleven operators complied by 1989
and were granted telepoint operations licenses. This enforcement mechanism
slowed the development of service infrastructure due to lack of availability of
CAI-compliant equipment. This circumstance added to the inability of
operators to coordinate their planning efforts significantly affected the
telepoint market. Companies started to loose interest in the service and
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 23
The Players
_____ Notes _____
eventually went out of business. In 1994, Rabbit, controlled by Hutchison
Personal Communications, was the only company left in Britain providing
telepoint services.
A year after awarding telepoint licenses, the DTI announced the launching of
PCN. The original idea did not focused in technical capabilities. Instead the
DTI was looking for any viable alternative that the market could provide to
compete in local access with British Telecom. Other rationales for the new
system included the limited capacity of cellular systems, low penetration, high
costs of terminals and services and low functionality.
STANDARDS IN EUROPE
During the years of PTT hegemony, international standards were defined by
teams of national administrators and major manufactures from industrialized
countries in coordination with the ITU (Steinfelid, 1994). Viewed as a non-
tariff trade barrier, international standardization efforts were aimed to maintain
incompatibility thus perpetuating the benefits of the PTTs and allies. The
ETSI was forced to maintain an arduous battle with the established structures
from its inceptions, since the conservative group opposed its creation and tried
to limit its scope to merely research responsibility. However the Green Paper
of 1990 on the Development of European Standardization gave a final push to
the ETSI by extending its standardization scope to the entire industry as
opposed to individual countries. The ETSI is formed by 200 members from 21
countries from which 60% are manufacturers, 14% are national administrators
(PTTs), 11% are public network operators, and 10% are users and service
providers (Stainfeild 1994). In response to a US concern that the ETSI might
become a "standards fortress" it was admitted as a non voting "associate
member."
The ETSI has 12 technical committees (TCs), three of which are in charge of
mobile communication standards. The TC PS (paging systems), the TC GSM
(Group Special Mobile), and the TC on RES (radio equipment and systems).
ETSI's highest authority rests in the Technical Assembly which makes the final
decisions on the standards. The ETSI has adopted an effective task-oriented
method in which flexible teams are put together to work in specific standards
needed by the industry. As a result, standards are being produced in a few
months as contrasted with the several years that it used to take before. By
October of 1992 more than 300 standards were already issued by the ETSI
(Steinfield, 1994).
The formulation of the GSM cellular standard, one of firsts developments
undertaken by the ETSI, was considered a success. GSM is important because
it has been adopted as an industry reference for product development since its
inception in the mid-1980s. Some have argued that GSM, which was
conceived of as a digital system, explains why Europe is so far ahead of the
U.S. in implementing digital systems. The U.S. is slowly trying to convert its
first-generation analog systems to digital systems. A year ago, Business Week
reported Europe being 12 to 18 months ahead of the US in digital product
availability. In addition, 70 countries have already adopted GSM giving the
standard a substantial advantage in front of other technologies.
Following the GSM success, the ETSI formulated the CT2 standard and the
Digital European Cordless Telephone (DECT) standard. CT2 Standards are
A5 - 24 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
based on the frequency division multiplex access/time division duplex
transmission FDMA/TDD, employ digital speech-coding techniques and
support dynamic channel allocations. Cordless is essentially an extension of
the fixed network and its uses power transmission of around 10mW with
coverage ranges from about 50 meter indoors to 200 meters outdoors. In the
UK, this system operates in 40 x 100 kHz channels in the 864.1-868.1 Mhz
frequency.. The DECT standard, which uses a system developed by Ericsson,
Philips and Siemens, serves both house cordless systems and telepoint (pay
phones) systems (Steinfield, 1994). DECT operates in the 1.88-190 GHz
frequency, using higher data rates and higher peak transmission power. As
opposed to CT2, DECT is base don the time division multiple access (TDMA)
technology. The DECT standard is fully backed by the Commission of the
European Communities
After the U.K. launched PCN in 1991, ETSI acted proactively to prevent the
creation of a new proprietary standard and the proliferation of subsequent
reactions in other countries. ETSI urged the UK regulators to coordinate the
standardization process on a Europe-wide basis. As a result, ETSI was
responsible for the formulation of the PCN standard. Some debate was
generated during the definition on the standard base to use for PCN, between
competing GSM and DECT standards. The decision was finally made favoring
GSM, partly because of pressures from countries already using the system, but
also because of the major financing and technical assistance coming from the
UK, which had the biggest GSM deployment in place.
In 1991 the ETSI concluded the technical PCN standard for Phase I. It was
based on the GSM specifications and due to its operability in the 1.8 GHz
band it was named DCS 1800. The main differences with the cellular system
were a different radio frequency-link definition with reduced output power
(250 mW), consistent with a smaller cell size (400m to 8 km). PCS (DCS
1800) is not a new superior network, but a digital cellular network (GSM)
operating at higher frequencies and offering more capacity (Paetsch, 1993).
Originally PCS service was only designed for national roaming. In 1989
despite the fact that Phase II was not concluded, the first three PCS licenses
were awarded in Britain to Mercury PNC, Unitel and a British Aerospace
consortia. The first PCS system was launched in Britain by a company called
Mercury One-2-One in September 1993, cutting most of GSM calling costs by
as much as 50%. The second PCS system was also established in Britain by a
Hong Kong based company, Hutchison Whampoa.
In other European countries, the GSM Standard DCS 1800 was well received.
Since its initial launching, the standard has had technical improvements that
increased its capacity and congestion problem. E-Plus Mobilfunk, a German
consortium, started operation on May 27, 1994 and analysts predict this will
be the largest PCS network in the world with 3.3 million subscribers by 2000.
(Business Week, May 23, 1994). In France the idea of a PCS service based on
GSM was initially rejected since France Telecom favored a system based on
DECT standard, that allows connectivity to private combinations facilities.
However in 1991 France announced its intention of setting up a testbed of
DCS 1800.
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 25
The Players
_____ Notes _____
UNITED STATES
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE IN THE U.S.
The U.S. wireless communication sector consists of subscriber equipment
manufacturers and service carriers. Both sectors are highly concentrated and
tend to be dominated by large electronics firms. This is due to three factors:
extensive technological barriers to entry, heavy capital requirements, and
regulatory restrictions (Business Economics, April 1994). Becoming a player
in the PCS market requires a tremendous amount of capital to build PCS
systems, relocate the current users of 2-GHz spectrum, and market the final
product. Companies will not see returns on their investments for some years
(Telecommunications, "PCS: A Progress Report). Nevertheless, some small
and mid-size firms are beginning to have a presence. Major producers of
wireless equipment include Motorola, both of which are expected to offer
handsets for PCS. Forerunners in the U.S. PCS service industry include the
regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), long distance carriers such as
Sprint, MCI, and GTE and cellular operators such as McCaw cellular
(Business Economics, April 1994).
As with other segments of the telecommunications industry, there is a trend
towards consolidation in offering national PCS service. US wireless carriers
are seeking partnerships in an effort to establish a single, nationwide wireless
network of services. While a proposed joint venture between MCI and Nextel
suddenly collapsed, MCI is now seeking other wireless partnerships. In similar
fashion, Sprint is joining up with Bell Atlantic and NYNEX
(Telecommunications, November 1994). AT&T purchased McCaw Cellular in
an effort to establish a national wireless network (AT&T's $12 Billion Cellular
Dream). The RBOCs are also establishing partnerships.
In addition to establishing national networks, U.S. service carriers recognize
that global networks are crucial to PCS profitability. The concept of Global
Personnel Communication Service extends the reach of terrestrial PCS islands
by overlaying satellite service. Global PCS will initially extend and augment
the services of incumbent carriers by providing access to leading edge
telecommunication services in locales unserved or underserved. Because of its
cost at no less than $3.00/minute and currently in the $7.00 range for Inmarsat
(International Maritime Satellite Organization) services, global PCS will not
compete with existing, cheaper terrestrial options, including cellular radio.
Analysts predict that the rollout of PCS will create a new profit center for
incumbent wireline carriers, rather that pose a financial and facilities bypass
threat. Because of its world-wide coverage, global PCS needs only a few
percentage points worth of market penetration to generate ample returns. If
PCS achieves "best case" market penetration, its stands to become an
important aspect of the telecommunication infrastructure in its own right, and
not because of its ability to augment and extend wireline facilities.
(Telecommunications, Dec. 1993)
The growth of the PCS industry includes expansion in the electronics and
software markets. Improvements and marketability of PCS will make wireless
devices ubiquitous. Additionally, analysts believe that developing easy-to-use
software will be the key step in developing an application that will entice users
to buy devices that support wireless data. Companies such as Mobile
Telecommunication Technologies Corp. which received a nationwide
narrowband PCS license to build a two-way wireless data network are teaming
A5 - 26 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
with investors such as Microsoft to develop wireless data communications
solutions for MTel's data network (Telecommunications, "PCS: A Progress
Report).
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT IN THE U.S.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) serves as the primary
regulatory body for the U.S. telecommunications industry. The FCC is
responsible for allocating spectrum in the U.S. market. In October 1991, the
FCC issues a policy statement asserting that PCS promised important
economic, competitive, and other public interest benefits and that PCS should
be very broadly defined. In making allocation decisions regarding PCS, the
FCC recognized that because of issues related to equipment cost, size, power,
and performance, and because of international considerations, PCS devices
and services have to operate in the 2-GHz band - between 1.8 and 2.2 GHz.
This posed a problem because for decades the 2-GHz band had been allocated
to commercial applications - common carrier, public safety and some video
microwave services. U.S. PCS suppliers and providers argued that the PCS
allocations in the 1.8 to 2.2-GHz bands was primarily an international
phenomenon and that the U.S. PCS industry risked being foreclosed from the
international market if it were not accommodated at home (Business
Communications Review, February 1994).
In September 1993, the FCC allocated 160 MHz exclusively for PCS. It
allocated another 3 MHz in the 900-MHz band for " narrowband" PCS
systems such as advanced paging and enhanced messaging. The FCC adopted
a scheme to relocate existing wireless users who occupy frequencies now
allocated to PCS. It also allocated additional spectrum for new, global mobile
satellite service (MSS). The FCC's actions paved the way for PCS service to
be offered in about 2,960 new licensable markets. By authorizing up to seven
different total licensees in two overlapping regional market areas - two
licensees with 30 MHz each in each of the 51 Major Trading Areas (MTAs)
and five licensees (one with 20 MHz and four with 10 MHz) in each of the
492 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs), the FCC attempted to spread the PCS
opportunity to as many potential new entrants and participants as possible.
However, existing communications statutes continue to bar foreign firms from
owning more than 25% of any U.S. spectrum license. (Business
Communications Review, February 1994).
The FCC chose to allocate licenses using a simultaneous multiple round
auction. In July 1994, the FCC completed its first auction of ten nationwide
narrowband PCS licenses in three different types: five 50/50 KHz licenses;
three 50/12.5 kHz licenses, and three 50 kHz (one of the 50 kHz licenses was
awarded as a pioneer preference (the FCC's Pioneer Preference scheme was
adopted in 1990 to provide licensing possibilities to small, entrepreneurial
firms that might otherwise find the application and auction process prohibitive
(Business Communications Review, February 1994)). By November 1994, the
FCC completed its auction of 30 regional narrowband licenses. The FCC
auction of 99 This tool inserts the following tag: broadband PCS licenses in
the 51 MTAs was completed on March 13, 1995. Two 30 MHz licenses in
each of the MTAs were sold, except for New York, Los Angeles, and
Washington, in which one of the two licenses were awarded as a Pioneer
Preference (Cramton, The PCS Spectrum Auction: Theory to Practice). The
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 27
The Players
_____ Notes _____
FCC rules provide for a 10-year licensing term (Business Communications
Review, February 1994).
STANDARDS IN THE U.S.
The standard-setting process in the United States is influenced in three ways:
by the FCC, by contributing to global standards development processes, and
through participation in voluntary standard-setting. The FCC is the only
agency in the U.S. that has the authority to set mandatory standards. For the
most part, the FCC has limited its standard-setting to ensuring efficient use of
the radio spectrum. The U.S. also has two public advisory committees that
assist the Department of State in formulating positions with regards to the
actions of the ITU. These organizations are the U.S. Organization for the
International Telegraph and Telecommunications Consultative Committee
(U.S. CCITT) and for the U.S. Organization for the International Radio
Consultative Committee (U.S. CCIR) (Paetsch, 1993).
In some cases, participants concerned with a given standard (e.g.,
manufacturers, purchasers) will voluntarily agree to standardize certain
features of a telecommunications product. To assist in this effort, a well-
established standards body or a trade association initiates a process to obtain
comments and build consensus. If consensus is reached, these voluntary
standards may be accepted by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI). ANSI's primary role is to coordinate the standardization activities of
the private sector. Its membership includes standards organizations, trade
organizations, federal and state government bodies, professional groups and
corporations. Increasingly, standards are being set by industry participants
without any government involvement (Paetsch, 1993).
Competition among digital standards in the U.S. has focused primarily on
TDMA and CDMA. U.S. wireless carriers have attempted to secure a
competitive advantage in highly contentious market areas by making strategic
choices between these standards. In 1988 the Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association (CTIA) published its user Performance Requirements, in
which CTIA spelled out its major goals for the move from analog to digital
technology. The resulting IS-54 standard is roughly based on a proposal first
released Ericsson Corporation in 1988. As noted in a Hughes Network
Systems publication, the chief goals were backward compatibility and a
tenfold capacity increase in spectrum use. The CTIA incorporated these goals
into IS-54 standard for TDMA. IS-54 served as the sole cellular digital
standard until 1993, when CTIA developed the IS-95 standard for CDMA
(Telephony January 10, 1994).
While TDMA is currently deployable, U.S. analysts believe CDMA
deployment is still some years off. Companies are making strategic decisions
to either deploy TDMA and offer customers digital service now, or claim that
the higher quality of CDMA technology is worth the wait. In particularly
competitive market areas such as Washington/Baltimore and Chicago, these
decisions are viewed as important signals of the prominence of these
standards.
McCaw Cellular was the first cellular carrier in the U.S. to deploy TDMA,
offering service commercially at the beginning of 1993. Southwestern Bell has
deployed TDMA in its Chicago market and is rolling out service in Boston
A5 - 28 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
Washington/Baltimore and other markets in 1994 (Telephony January 10,
1994). BellSouth cited TDMA's availability, proven performance and the
ability to quickly roll out enhanced services to customers as its reasons for
choosing TDMA (Telephony, June 20, 1994). Bell Atlantic Mobile announced
in early 1994 that it is deploying TDMA digital technology in the
Washington/Baltimore market rather that waiting for CDMA. The move,
which marks the first time a CDMA proponent has chosen to deploy TDMA,
will allow Bell Atlantic Mobile to go head-to-head with rival Southwestern
Bell. Bell Atlantic explained that the market is ready for digital today, and that
TDMA is proven, available, and working (Telephony February 28, 1994). In
support of the TDMA choice, analysts assert that CDMA will not be fully
field-ready for some time. Thus, if companies want to deploy digital in the
near future, TDMA is the answer. TDMA supporters maintain that they do not
see TDMA as a short-term transitional technology to CDMA, but rather a
digital solution for the "foreseeable future" (Telephony, June 20, 1994).
CDMA proponents include a AirTouch, Ameritech, AT&T, GTE, Motorola,
Northern Telecom, Nynex, Qualcom, and US West. The group is in the
process of defining a set of technical requirements for CDMA equipment and
services in order to facilitate market introduction of CDMA. The group is
testing CDMA technology in three phases. Phase one, which involves the
definition of laboratory test procedures for CDMA subscriber equipment, has
been completed. Phase one established compliance with CDMA standard IS-
95 and IS-98, which is the minimum performance standard for subscriber
equipment. Phase two involves tests between subscriber equipment and
CDMA network infrastructures. Those test requirements are in the process of
being defined. The final phase will involve testing subscriber equipment in the
field on true commercial systems. (Telephony, August 15, 1994). CDMA
proponents claim the technology's superior voice and service quality
characteristics (Telephony February 28, 1994). CDMA technology may also
sharply reduce the number of cell sites, thus significantly lowering costs to
carriers (Telephony March 7, 1994).
The proposed MCI investment in Nextel sparked renewed debate over the
prospects for a modified version of the GSM technology as a standard for
digital cellular in the U.S. (GSM is used by Nextel). While GSM has been
virtually shut out of the U.S. standard debate, some analysts claim that GSM,
which offers an entrenched equipment base, current availability, and supports
several advanced services, could play a key role as companies try to roll out
new services and fend off competition. The collapse of the MCI - Nextel
partnership has further silenced talk of GSM in the U.S. with industry experts
claiming there is little demand for GSM in the U.S. market (Telephony March
7, 1994).
ASIA
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE IN ASIA
Privatization of national telecommunications authorities in the Asia-Pacific
region is in various stages of progress, but the need to expand beyond
domestic markets is evident. There is an increasing demand for mobile
wireless services including multiple market operators and better telephone line
penetration. With the deregulation of customer premises equipment (CPE)
market in many countries of the Asia Pacific region, accompanied by the
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 29
The Players
_____ Notes _____
privatization of most telecommunications authorities, competition for lucrative
contracts is on the rise. These sweeping changes have produced a policy shift
beyond simply fulfilling the basic telecommunications requirements of the
region. Increasingly, value-added services are demanded by this explosive
market. The influence of firms in Japan, Canada, the United States, and the
European Community is increasingly evident in a highly competitive
telecommunications market. (Ernst Otto Weiss, pp. 6-10).
The Asia Pacific region has no other option but to develop its
telecommunication infrastructure at a highly accelerated rate. It is estimated
that in the next twenty years, the Asia Pacific region will need 500 million new
telephone lines. Estimates of the size of the telecommunications market vary
from 70-75 billion U.S. dollars to more than 100 billion U.S. dollars. Most of
the telephone facilities are concentrated in urban areas, leaving the rural
populations without even basic facilities (Karlheinz Kaske, p. 18). The mobile
communications market in Asia Pacific region is forecast to catch up with and
surpass the U.S. and European markets.
In Japan, the mobile cellular market was monopolized by the Nippon
Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (NTT) until late 1988 when the
Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) decided to introduce
competition. The Japanese Digital Cellular standard (JDC) was developed by
NTT, in association with various equipment manufacturers including AT&T,
Motorola, and Ericsson (Sweden). Two of these, Motorola and Ericsson,
agreed to cooperate with NEC in promoting the JDC standard in Asia. This
was a unique development since Motorola was at the same time promoting
AMPS in the United States and Ericsson was committed to GSM in Europe. In
early October 1992, the Japanese telecommunications ministry announced that
cellular telephone services could be included in Japan's overseas development
assistance program (ODA). The MPT believes that cellular systems - which
can be installed in a short period of time, and at a relatively low cost -
represent the best way of providing developing countries with a modern
communications infrastructure. Many developing countries have already
begun installing cellular systems since their ordinary networks are inadequate
(Megumi Komiya, pp. 76-90).
TESTING CONTINUES FOR PHS SYSTEMS
Japan's Personal Handy-Phone System (PHS) has its roots in the first cordless
telephones of the 1970s -- called CT1. The second generation of this
technology, CT2, gave cordless telephones users a wider range of several
hundred feet. PHS aims to break these constraints and allow users to roam
anywhere within a few hundred feet of cell stations installed and operated by
service providers. Operating near its base station at frequencies in the 1.9 GHz
band, PHS functions like a cordless telephone and is billed as if it were any
other home or office telephone. Out of range, however, the handy phone
switches to the nearest cell station. Like a cellular phone it can send and
receive calls as long as it remains within range of a cell station. Unlike a
cellular phone it can not be used in cars or other fast-moving vehicles. Its chief
benefit is the very low cost (about one third the cost of cellular service) which
would allow almost ninety percent the populations of the developed countries
to subscribe to PHS. The second benefit is a very wide usable bandwidth.
Unlike cellular technology which uses much of its bandwidth to provide fast
cell-to-cell switching (for use in fast moving vehicles), PHS has sufficient
A5 - 30 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
bandwidth for multimedia use. PHS service providers can compete with both
telephone and cable television providers (Financial Times Ltd, September 1,
1994).
PHS service tests are being carried out mainly by telecommunications carriers
with the cooperation of manufacturers, while interconnectivity tests are being
conducted by 40 equipment manufacturers under the supervision of the
Research and Development Center for Radio Systems (RCR). The service tests
have been started by six groups including Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
Corp., DDI Corp., Kokusai Denshin Denwa Co. (Overseas Communications
Japan), Japan Telecom Co., Ltd., Teleway Japan Corp., Shikoku Information
and Telecommunication Network Co., Inc., and Tokyo Telecommunication
Network Co., Inc. The remaining two groups, including Tokyo Telemessage
Inc., and the Kansai Personal Handy Phone Research Association, are
scheduled to start tests soon. The interconnectivity tests are now under way in
the metropolitan Tokyo area by individual makers using the facilities of the
companies participating in the service tests.
The remarkable feature of PHS is its flexibility in operation. It can be used at
home or in the office by accessing the base unit which is connected to the
public switched telephone network, and can also be used on the street by
accessing the cell stations installed in that area. PHS has a function for
location registration for outdoor use. The area size covered by a single cell
station will be within a radius of 100 to 200 meters. To prevent illicit use of
the terminals, it also has an authentication function. Call charges for PHS are
expected to be less than the existing cellular mobile phone charges.
There are three types of PHS system configurations being studied: using
public digital networks, connection to public networks, and establishment of
an independent network. In the type using the public networks, PHS operation,
including authentication and location registration, is dependent on the
network. However, the authentication function may be incorporated into PHS.
In the type connecting to public networks, all of the PHS functions except
roaming are incorporated in PHS. It uses public networks to connect calls. In
the type possessing independent networks, all of the PHS functions are
incorporated in PHS. Therefore, it uses public networks only for network
interconnection. In any of the configurations, both outgoing and incoming
calls are available. However, for the configuration connecting to public
networks, availability of outgoing calls only is also being considered. In this
case, radio pagers are used in place of a receiving function. There is a
possibility that PHS could be introduced to the world market in the future,
since the product adopts the 1,900 MHz frequency approved by the World
Administrative Radio Conference (WARC).
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT IN ASIA
On June 24, 1994 based upon a report from the "Study Group for Evaluation
of the PHS Field Trials" and opinions from telecommunications carriers and
users in field trials, MPT decided the servicing guideline for
commercialization of PHS. MPT issued Type I Carrier Licenses to 21 PHS
carriers on January 31st 1995. The 21 carriers were divided into 3 groups: The
ASTEL group, DDI Packet Telephone Group and NTT Personal
Communications Network group. PHS Service will start in July 1995 in Tokyo
and Hokkaido, and most other carriers are scheduled to begin services in
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 31
The Players
_____ Notes _____
October 1995. There are 21 Personal Handy-Phone Systems carriers licensed
by the MPT.
Included in the MPT guideline were the following points:
• Initially, among frequencies in the 1.9 GHz band, the 12 MHz
bandwidth would be allocated to up to three PHS carriers in each
regional block. Once the PHS business was under way and the status of
frequency utilization and demand trends was understood, the allocation
of additional frequencies would be studied.
• Within five years of the launch of the business, each carrier must strive
to provide PHS service over an area containing at least 50% of the
population of the regional block.
• To ensure the sound development of the PHS business and fair
competition, public switched network carriers would allow PHS carriers
to connect to the public switched network under fair conditions. This
means carriers who offer subscriber telephone service or ISDN service
via subscriber lines.
On November 1, 1994 the MPT imposed additional guidelines for the
expansion of PHS in Japan:
• To expand usage, PHS carriers were expected to provide services with
reasonable, diverse rates and over a wider service area, including
industrial parks and exhibition sites.
• Carriers are requested develop plans for the inter-connection facilities
required for PHS networks to operate efficiently. Fair terms and
conditions including fair interconnection charge schedules were
mandated.
• The numbering system for PHS would conform to a specified format:
(service identification number) -xx (carrier identification number) -
xxxxx (subscriber number).
• PHS carriers were to push forward toward inter-regional roaming which
would allow for nationwide utilization of PHS services.
• Related organizations were required to provide for the use of public
facilities and buildings (traffic lights, utility poles, public telephone
booths and railway stations) on reasonable terms and under equal
conditions so that PHS carriers can establish base stations efficiently.
The government of Hong Kong became the first outside Japan to adopt Japan's
PHS during the summer of 1994. This month (April 1995), five Japanese
telecommunications service companies and equipment manufacturers are
conducting a joint experiment of PHS in China. NTT, DDI Corp., NEC Corp.,
Fujitsu Ltd. and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. are conducting the
experiment with the cooperation of China's Ministry of Post &
Telecommunications. With Western companies entering the Chinese market
with their own phone systems, the Japanese companies decided that a joint
experiment would be a quicker way of marketing their products than
conducting individual experiments (Japan Economic Newswire, January 7,
1995). The Japanese government is developing a proposal which if accepted
by its neighbors could make PHS the pan-Asian standard for wireless
communication. (Financial Times Ltd, September 1, 1994).
A5 - 32 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
STANDARDS IN ASIA
In many parts of Asia, the current network infrastructure is composed of
elements which are compatible with European technical standards. Since
mobile communications needs to interface to the fixed network, the ground
may be already prepared in some Asian countries for the introduction of the
European cellular standard, GSM. In fact, the People's Republic of China,
Singapore, India all seem to be adopting GSM for the near future. Hong Kong
is using a combination of US and European systems. (Megumi Komiya, p. 86)
As for telecommunications infrastructure, smooth globalization begins at a
stage where regional users can actively use telecommunications. Based on this
concept, the AII (Asia-Pacific Information Infrastructure) concept was
proposed in APT and has been promoted for the Asia-Pacific region. This was
followed by APII proposal of Korea at APEC in 1994. Japan has been creating
an info-communications infrastructure and has been providing the required
technology and know-how through AIC (Asian ISDN Council). These efforts
will actively be continued .
The Japanese are pushing hard throughout Asia to have their PHS standard
adopted. Thailand and Hong Kong will be next online starting early 1996,
although standards have yet to be finalized. Operators using the PCS system
are to begin services in Singapore and Malaysia in October 1995. But the
struggle is only beginning. Experts expect these standards to go head to head
until one dominates the international market (Asiaweek, February 3, 1995).
SECTION V: POLICY ALTERNATIVES
Based on the context provided above, this Green Paper recommends
consideration of three policy alternatives: De facto standard setting; definition
by ITU, and definition by international research and development consortia.
Given the differences in the PCS markets in Europe, United States, and Asia,
any standardization effort is likely to encompass elements of each of these
policy alternatives.
DE FACTO STANDARD SETTING
Standard-setting responsibility is left to the private sector. Standards may be
set in the private sector either formally or informally. Industry participants
may voluntarily seek to establish a standard for a specific technology or
process. Perhaps with the assistance of a standard-setting body, the
participants will solicit comments and attempt to build consensus. Eventually,
the standard that is recommended by this process is then adopted by standard-
setting bodies. More informally, proponents of a particular technology may try
to force a standard by building a critical mass in the market place. Once this
critical mass had been reached, the technology becomes the de facto standard.
Particularly in the U.S., standards are often set by the private sector with no
government intervention. Proponents of this method argue that a rigid
standard-setting process stifles innovation and may lead to the adoption of less
effective standards. Alternatively, critics worry that the lack of formal
standard-setting procedures increases the chance that technologies are
deployed only to be immediately out-dated.
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 33
The Players
_____ Notes _____
DEFINITION BY ITU
National governments rely on international organizations such as the ITU to
define standards. Standards that are defined by the ITU are then incorporated
into national guidelines by the participating nations. While ITU has the largest
international membership of all the standard-setting bodies, it lacks
enforcement mechanisms. Additionally, sovereign nations may be unwilling to
vote for technically superior standards that are unpopular with domestic
providers. As a result, standard setting efforts could be log-jammed.
DEFINITION BY INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIA
This alternative proposes that standards be defined by research consortiums,
which are responsible for the entire standardization effort. In principle this
consortia would be responsible for:
• assessing existing technologies
• producing standards alternatives based on needs and technologies
available
• deploying testbeds
• evaluating results
• defining standards
• coordinate implementation
For example, in Europe this task is currently being assigned to the Research
and technology development in Advanced Communications technologies in
Europe (RACE) consortia. It was established in 1985 with the main objective
of integrating existing technologies and advocating the transition towards
more general standards. RACE is a collaborative European research program,
running from June 1987 to December 1995 (including Phases I & II and
extension). It receives a financial contribution from the European Community
of 1103 MECU which represents less than 50% of the overall effort estimated
at 2500 MECU.
CONCLUSION
The role of international standardization in telecommunications is changing.
An increasingly important role for standardization is the reduction of costs
through the availability of a larger global market. The coordination of national
standards benefits the user through making available a wide range of services
and the development of new telecommunications devices with a greater range
of choice of suppliers. The definition of a standard service gives the suppliers
greater confidence that substantial investments in research and development
will yield huge returns in this exploding market. This is particularly important
in the integration of various levels of service. These benefits must be weighed
against the disadvantages. If there is too great an emphasis on standards, the
development of new and imaginative ways of deploying new technology may
be inhibited which in turn can limit the operation of market forces to choose
emerging products ("Trends of Change in Telecommunications Policy," #13,
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 1987,
pp. 166-167). As policy makers work with industry participants to bring PCS
to an international market, all of these issues must be carefully balanced.
A5 - 34 An Introduction to Communications Systems
The Players
_____ Notes _____
An Introduction to Communications Systems A5 - 35