I have become confused and disturbed recently. And I do not like it. Confused I have grown used to over the years, but disturbed is a new phenomenon. I think some drastic action is needed.
Disturbed became an issue at the GSM World Congress in Cannes, France, in late February. Rebranding the event as the 3GSM World Congress left a sour taste. Third-generation (3G) does not have to be built on GSM. 3G is the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) IMT-2000 family of systems compromise within which family members have to meet interoperability requirements. The very essence of 3G is to enable global roaming for advanced data services, while protecting existing 2G investments. 3GSM smells like an attempt by the GSM Association to hijack 3G by associating it with GSM-an association that is contrary to the spirit of the hard-fought IMT-2000 compromise.
But the GSM Association is a mere novice at the hijacking game. Successful hijacking demands the addition of hype and hypocrisy to the ingredient mix, and the master chefs of such recipes were active long before Cannes. According to their menus, 3G services already exist and contracts for immediate upgrades to 3G are being announced almost daily.
These are not 3G services or contracts. The contracts and announcements are merely higher data rate enhancements to cdmaOne systems. Originally labeled 1XRTT, they are not compatible with the IMT-2000 family members. But their new labels imply that they are. 1XRTT seems to have become cdma2000 1X, and cdma2000 itself is now referred to as 3G1X. Sewing confusion in this way has been effective. 3G is being relegated to merely second generation (2G) with higher data rates. Global roaming capability, the heart of the 3G vision, is simply being ignored.
Ignoring roaming capability has long been a characteristic of the U.S. approach to cellular. And ensuring interoperability with alternative systems is incompatible with the U.S. philosophy of allowing market forces to decide between competing systems. Continuing with this approach domestically is fine. If the United States wants to risk losing out on 3G in the same way it lost out on 2G, then that is its choice. Imposing this approach on other people against their wishes is not quite so fine. Agreeing to an alternative approach and then attempting to sabotage it is not fine at all-it is unethical and immoral.
That is what disturbs me. Deliberate attempts to mislead and sabotage such as we are seeing today should not be tolerated. Particularly in 3G. U.S. intransigence and isolationism over spectrum allocations and standardization were a major factor in forcing the need for the 3G compromise in the first place. To then attempt to undermine the agreed compromise is unacceptably arrogant.
It is not just 3G of course. From environmental concerns to anti-ballistic missiles treaties, it is clear the United States really does not care any more what the rest of the world thinks. Policies are being and will be determined by what the United States perceives as its best interests. For environmental and world stability issues, that creates a problem. Ignoring the United States is not an option. For 3G, perhaps it creates an opportunity. Ignoring the United States-both as a market and a source of suppliers-could actually solve more problems than it creates. That is not an idle observation; think about it.
