ITU, IMO, functions according to basic free market, game theories,
where every participant tries to figure out as many
steps of all the other as possible (and unlike chess
there is much still unknown, lots of players and no end
game)
Those who are capable of cooperation gain, those who are
not can always try to use the weapon of disrupting the process.
For all parts to agree, support the final solution,
no one party can be a total winner, all have to start
from a somewhat, acceptable to all, equal position.
If not, they will, just like kids and QCOM, not participate
and can go playing alone on their own yard.
What makes it possible is that it is a question of
telecommunication, mostly global, so isolationists
will, by their own free will, be cut off.
I believe there are no, or very few, examples of one
company or group, even with a "perfect" solution, who the
others would agree to support as a standard.
Instead the agreement comes from at least two
mechanisms.
- the "perfect" solution is improved or adapted
- compromises are made which place all in a more
similar situation.
No dictators need apply...
Ilmarinen
PS. It is interesting that even local,"non global" standards
like cable modems, etc, which do not have to connect
half way around the globe, just a couple of
point-to-point local miles or feet, like DSL,
WLAN,etc, still need the global standards to produce
economy of scales and competition.. the other
global factor through global trade.
Few voluntarily sign a multigenerational slave contract,
competing second sources are a must, except for
those who see no other solution.
An operators, like elephants, have huge, long term
investments and memories for those who mainly
disrupt the process without contributing and
delivering constructively, because the operators
pay the bill. |
