Hi, Peter - I remember reading that article.
More to the point, I'll agree with you that the Euro standards bodies are absolutely glacial in their progress.
And my upstream post to Frank, from Jeff Pulver's newsletter sees the ITU siding with the incumbents against progress -
Message 15085369
I don't think that all is wonderful in Euro land. OTOH, neither is all wonderful, here.
"Why should regulators side with progress, if it's not in the public interest?". >g<
In the case in question above, I'm not sure why the ITU is opposing the forces of progress. Could it have to do with problems in billing?
This all goes back to Frank's question:
'"While I never intended the comments to be translated to telecomms, I believe that the Euro approach to regulation has some benefits. They have not entirely deregulated, and they regard telecomms as an area in which the public has a vital interest."
I've been led to believe that that which has not been liberalised yet, will be. The recent wireless auctions, and opening up the local loop, were supposed to be next. Would you, or someone else, kindly expand on this point?
Message 15100201
- My answer would be that if they liberalize, they'll certainly take their time at it. Yet, despite the problems of the moment, when all is said and done, they do seem to get it right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Going back to what began this dialogue, it would be good if the broader imperatives of ETSI, and the speed of IEEE action, were exchanged. Perhaps the exchange would make the IEEE incapable of speed, and ETSI incapable of a broad mandate.
Well, maybe it's best that there are two separate organizations, who will later harmonize. Maybe that's the only way.
Best regards,
Jim |
