To: Joe NYC who wrote (20142 ) 12/20/1998 3:12:00 PM From: Ruffian Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
3G Opinion> From the December 21, 1998 issue of Wireless Week Guest Opinion: 3G Standards Policy: Government Shouldn't Intervene In Debate By Michael Topper Should the United States government intervene in the current debate over third-generation wireless standards? Based on our review of the evidence, the answer is no! Such intervention would do more harm than good. Market competition among multiple 3G standards likely will create many important benefits for U.S. consumers and society, including greater service and product variety, reduced incremental buildout costs and more innovation. Moreover, competition among multiple standards allows the market, rather than government regulators, to resolve uncertainty regarding the best technology for meeting future consumer needs. Are there corresponding benefits to a single national standard? One argument for a single standard is easier nationwide roaming. However, recent technological advances, such as multi-mode, multi-frequency communication devices promote multi-standard roaming. Moreover, second-generation wireless providers (or alliances) with near-nationwide footprints increasingly are offering easy roaming within each 2G standard. 3G service providers can be expected to respond similarly to consumer demand for roaming. A second claim is that a single standard facilitates economies of scale in production. Here again, the evidence suggests that any economies of scale in production are realized within each 2G standard and that a similar situation would prevail in 3G. A third claim is that the United States will lose manufacturing jobs and leadership if the U.S. government fails to mandate a standard. However, manufacturing jobs and leadership depend on a host of factors, not simply on a standard's country of origin. Since wireless manufacturing jobs are internationally mobile, a U.S.-mandated 3G standard is unlikely to lead to lasting benefits for U.S. manufacturers or manufacturing workers. Moreover, the vast majority of American manufacturers already serve multiple 2G standards. In addition, the primary consideration of a standards policy should be the interests of consumers, a goal that is undermined by giving special consideration to any particular standard. Rather than follow calls to retaliate against Europe's anticipated move to adopt a single standard by adopting a single U.S.-backed standard or by forcing convergence of standards, the U.S. government should redouble efforts to persuade the European Union to embrace multiple standards. U.S. consumers and society are best served by allowing multiple standards to compete. The U.S. government should not forsake its enlightened policy of "letting the market decide." Dr. Michael Topper specializes in antitrust and intellectual property issues at Cornerstone Research and is a lecturer in Stanford University's department of economics. Joseph Farrell, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and former chief economist at the FCC, also contributed to this editorial. Farrell and Topper recently authored a white paper sponsored by the North American GSM Alliance. | Home Page | Site Map | Search Archive | PowerSearch | | International | Wireless Web Sites | Hot Stories | Please send comments and suggestions on this Web site to jcollins@chilton.net Wireless Week, 600 S. Cherry St., #400, Denver, CO 80246 Voice: 303-393-7449, Fax: 303-399-2034 Published by Cahners Business Information © Copyright 1998. All rights reserved.