Editor:
While I always enjoy good sarcasm, Stuart Sharrock’s column, “Sorry to be stupid, but …,” on American reactions to Europe’s third-generation (3G) wireless fiasco is at times misleading (see “Opinion”). (Though at other times, Mr. Sharrock provides a wonderful example of how the truest things are often said in jest.)
As I understand him, Mr. Sharrock accuses unnamed Americans of saying or implying that Europeans are stupid. He accuses our media of blatant manipulation. And he complains that some of us have taken to preaching to Europeans at a time when our own telecommunications industry is in sad shape.
There are really two separate issues here. One is industrial policy. The other is how we treat each other.
Though some of us may not be sufficiently respectful in the way we present our message, that has no bearing on whether the message is true or false. The basic complaint is that Europe has made two key mistakes. The first was mandating GSM to the exclusion of what is now known as cdmaOne. The second was rigging the 3G contest to ensure all UMTS operators would select W-CDMA technology.
European policy was wrong both ethically and technically. It was ethically wrong because it unfairly excluded proponents of other technologies and deprived operators and users of a legitimate alternative. It was technically wrong because it delayed Europe’s adoption of CDMA technology, which virtually everyone now agrees is the basis for 3G.
Mr. Sharrock doesn’t help set the record straight when he complains about American name-calling, “media manipulation,” and “preaching.” I’ve been following and debating CDMA since 1989. I was shocked in the early 1990s when I discovered there were people claiming IS-95 CDMA was an attempt to “violate the laws of physics” and Qualcomm’s top executives would eventually be indicted for stock fraud. These charges appear to have originated from side actors in the United States, but were enthusiastically echoed by some of Europe’s top executives and engineers.
I was personally scolded at a briefing by one of Europe’s leading vendors for defending IS-95 CDMA, and was told (in front of colleagues) I was in need of remedial education. That vendor has since apologized (sincerely), but a greater injustice remains undone. Mr. Sharrock complains about bad “American attitudes,” but I see millions of GSM users in the United States and still not one cdmaOne or cdma2000 user in Western Europe. Deeply offended European industrialists are laughing all the way to the bank.
As for charges of “media manipulation,” I must ask Mr. Sharrock, “Where have you been for the last 10 years?” We have seen one article after another in the general press (both American and European) about how the United States had fallen hopelessly behind in wireless due to our attachment to competing standards-the implication being that the U.S. industry was in desperate need of adult supervision.
But let me reassure Mr. Sharrock. The issue is not who is rude and who is offended; industry executives on both sides of the Atlantic are really not that thin-skinned. The real losers are European wireless users who will wait a long time for affordable and available 3G. Because when people like Mr. Sharrock survey the situation, their reaction is not to open Europe’s market (as required by trade agreements) but only to dig in their heels even more.
Ira Brodsky
President
Datacomm Research Company
Chesterfield, Massachusetts, United States
