In general the one who builds, defines, writes the
standard is the one who ensures the compatibilty to
existing equipment.
If, and only if, the goal is to ensure compatibility
and constructive, free and open competition.
This is why the operators have organized in ITU,
earlier CCITT (europe), to avoid becoming the playground
for manufacturers fights to win market share from
each other.
The US history is slightly different due to the
monopolistic position of AT&T and "Bell Labs", but
the "Bell standards" and CCITT standards were resolved
somewhere between the 300 Bps FSK modem, Bell-103 and
V21, leading up to V22,V32, V32bis and V90,etc (late 80s
forward)
At that time modems were the most mobile thing there was,
demanding global standards (cmpr fax).
Similar for the 64-56kbps problems, ISDN,etc,etc,etc.
That is, the history of standards are littered with
submarine patents and submarine upgrades, discriminating
features, countered by submarine nets and mutually agreed
testing and verification procedures and resulting in
some isolated villages.
There was even a guardtone (not -band, like for Q) added
to one modem just to ensure functionality on one old
Ericsson switch only used in Lapland, when the standard
finally become commonly used.
On the other hand one has all the reasons why Microsoft
has a tough time in US courts, using their position
to fend off competition.
As well as the pain of having only IBM supplied paper
for IBM printers hooked up with IBM cables to IBM
mainframes (and then MS did what they did with the
open AT standard).
That is, what is the task of CDG and QCOM??
Ilmarinen.
P.S. does it include ensuring the capability to ensure
compatibility for a standard announced to be compatible??
(an open standard)
P.P.S. Ensuring some kind of protection for their domestic
economy is, obviously, a main target for all in terms of
China, until they can compete on more equal terms in
10-15 years.
However, few are as understanding in the case of part of US
longing for a protected, isolated and guaranteed existence.
(if you didn't get it, QCOM and CDG messed up really badly,
not "testing" the "compatible standard" with existing
equipment, the nightmare for any operator who think it can
compete on a free, open market, but the last wet dream for
anyone who cannot.
One of the worst signals to send to any prospective
operator) |
