Euro-Influence>
European telecom efforts could threaten US competitors
Journal of Commerce
The telecommunications industry has been looking for ways to resolve a host
of technologyissues for the next generation of mobile phone communications.
Industry members met Feb. 10 at a European Union-sponsored session in
Strasbourg, France. According to an EU statement, the meeting "underlined
the need for an industry-led effort at a global level to settle a number of issues
in order to converge on a worldwide agreement (for the third-generation
wireless)."
Significantly, the release also cited the need to resolve "some critical IPR
(intellectual property right) matters" and said that "technical parameters should
not be blocked by IPR considerations."
This is one example of EU efforts to be a world player in telecommunications.
But the EU is involved in other ways -- particularly in world outreach to
promote its standards infrastructure -- that some U.S. telecom leaders believe
may have equally far-reaching implications for the global market.
SHAPING THE FUTURE THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS
In documents that have appeared both on the Internet and in print, the
European Telecommunications Standards Institute has stated the following
goals: "To shape the future of mobile communications through partnerships
(worldwide), to be a driver in fixed networks and raise ETSI'S profile in
Internet-related activities."
To this and other ends, ETSI has a budget of over $20 million. Most of these
funds are believed to be derived from membership dues but EU subsidies
continue to increase ETSI's ability to carry out central management and
missionary activities on behalf of European- based interests.
As part of central control, ETSI has made major changes in its organizational
and management processes designed to increase top-down management and
control of the standards production machinery. This included the establishment
of a closed-door ETSI board of directors that appears to exercise authority
over the General Assembly, the only ETSI policy-level process open to all
members.
These changes appear to produce a tight coupling between European
Industrial Policy and ETSI standardization activities. This too is in stark
contrast to the fully open competitive methods used in the United States for
the establishment of telecom standards as driven solely by market forces, said
U.S. industry sources.
According to documents, the ETSI, in cooperation with the EU, is actively
promoting European telecommunication interests in China, India, Latin
America, former Eastern block countries, Arab states and Iran, Asia and
Africa.
Activities slated for 1999 range from informational exchange meetings such as
one slated for the first half of the year in Beijing to information-sharing
seminars with Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. The European Commission -- the
bureaucratic arm of the European Union -- has launched a specific
collaboration program on standards with Asian countries, and has welcomed
European telecom participation.
ETSI WANTS AN UNDERSTANDING WITH CITELMoreover, ETSI is
working on a memorandum of understanding with Citel (the Interamerican
Commission of Telecommunication), which is operated under the authority of
the Organization of American States. This involves all of the Americas,
including the United States and Canada.
Past memorandums of understanding have focused mostly on the
establishment of open communication channels and frequently include the right
to attend each other's meetings as observers.
From a U.S. industry perspective, the problem with the ETSI proposal is that it
is seeking European input and participation in an organization designed to
serve the interests of the Americas. This would be similar to an American
standards development organization asking for a memorandum of
understanding with the EU or with some other European-only entity.
As the ETSI/Citel memorandum of understanding has not been signed, and its
terms are still being negotiated, it's hard at this juncture to gauge its
importance. Certainly, it signifies close ties between the regions and sharing of
standards and other related practices. Whether the memorandum of
understanding would offer market advantage to the EU, particularly in the
coveted Latin American market, remains to be seen.
US INDUSTRY STRIVES TO BUILD AWARENESSMembers of the U.S.
telecom industry are intent on building awareness of European world outreach
in the telecom arena. Industry members are more concerned that the U.S.
standards system as currently organized and funded can't compete with ETSI,
and that U.S.-based standardization will lose influence if it cannot become
more competitively cooperative in what needs to bean exercise in
cooperation.U.S. industry members say they are butting up against a
well-funded ETSI effort to dominate global telecom standardization, one that
even includes a budget estimated at $600,000 just to fund public-relation
initiatives to address the negative image seen in governmental activities in the
United States.
By contrast, industry members say the U.S. standards organizations have
nothing budgeted for outreach or for dealing with any issues outside of the
direct support for the development of U.S. standards. In telecommunications,
all public relation or other external activity supporting the globalization of the
standardization interests are funded by individual members of the U.S.
standards community. They are not covered by the collection of dues or by
contributions from the U.S. government.
Industry members also raise concerns about ETSI operating procedures. Most
difficult, they say, is the fact that ETSI does not practice what is called
transparency in the international trade arena. In other words, many decisions
are made in private.
They point out that Europeans often strive to create a pan- European
standard. The result is a unified European approach that may produce a
profound negative impact on competing technologies. This is the crux of the
ongoing second- and third-generation cell phone (wireless) debate.
In terms of third-generation wireless -- the so-called "3G" technology that will
guide new cell phone design -- industry sources say the EU has specified the
parameters. They claim the EU decision results in ETSI working on Euro-
promoted technologies, but not on other market technologies as is currently
done.
Gerald Peterson, chairman of the American National Standards Institute's
Accredited Committee T1, says the well-organized and funded program
mounted by ETSI, in unity with the EU, may put U.S.- based interests at a
disadvantage in those areas of the world where there is a standardization
vacuum.
"This disadvantage could also result in a reduction of U.S. influence at the
international level of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) due to
isolation of those views to U.S.A. only," he said.
WHAT CAN THE UNITED STATES DO BESIDES WATCH?
What can the United States can do about this situation? That's the problem,
according to industry sources. They argue for the need for government
response followed by an industry understanding of what's going on. Industry
needs to offer resources to deal with European outreach -- meaning putting
forward people and salaried experts who can travel around the world, pushing
those standardization activities that represent the consensus of U.S. industry.
They would also like to see more backing by the U.S. government of domestic
telecom companiesexpanding overseas by making technical attaches available
from missions and embassies, as well as establish liaisons in foreign countries.
They also argue the need for government and industry to act in unison in
foreign markets.
In essence, they're suggesting the United States learn something from the
ETSI model, which offers far more government/industry coordination than
currently exists here.
Some of these recommendations are being addressed through a joint ANSI
working group that's coordinating with the U.S. State Department and Office
of the U.S. Trade Representative to "enhance and increase government
involvement and globalization of U.S. technology, including telecom."
But the even bigger question is whether the U.S. telecom industry, which is by
nature competitive, can unite behind this larger cause of creating a strong U.S.
telecom standards presence abroad.
(Copyright 1999) |
