Multiple choice

It's quite possible that the standards bodies pushing for a single universal architecture for the next generation of wireless networks are missing the point.

Just recently, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute completed what was essentially the world's first attempt at forging a third generation standard. ETSI was charged with developing an evolutionary path for the GSM networks of the carriers that look to it for guidance, but its decision likely will have many more widespread implications.

Reports on the proceedings indicate that ETSI members were frustrated and disappointed that they could not agree on a single platform.

They opted instead to compromise, recommending that one of the proposed architectures be used for wide area mobility systems and that the other be used for low-mobility and fixed systems.

Where ETSI apparently sees a certain degree of failure in its efforts, I see progress. This industry-wireless and beyond-has built itself on technological variety. Evolution has no single answer, and for any group to work so hard to try to find it seems to be a futile effort.

Network operators around the world have invested heavily in the different technologies their networks support. Network equipment vendors around the world have invested heavily in developing gear they could sell to those carriers to make their networks perform at a level of quality and efficiency that meets carrier and customer expectations. Standards bodies around the world have allowed multiple technological options to take root so that carriers, vendors and customers could choose the option that best meets their needs.

It is therefore the responsibility of the standards bodies not to push for the adoption of a single future platform to which all carriers must conform, but rather to push for the development of overarching platforms that have the flexibility to tie together all the disparate networks that have been created.

Why do we have standards at all? Ironically, the reason is because they foster choice. When equipment and technology manufacturers can develop their offerings to a specific, predetermined design, carriers have the option of evaluating them on equal ground and buying the one that makes the most economic and technological sense. A lot of history goes into those decisions, and if no standards were in place to direct evolution, many of those historical decisions could be put in jeopardy.

There are clear reasons for network evolution, particularly if wireless is going to be viewed as an increasingly viable landline alternative or even as a replacement for wireline in some instances. The concept of wideband wireless networks may still seem somewhat foreign-particularly in a society where wireless service is only now becoming a common mode of voice communication-but ultimately it will make sense as wireless technology develops to the point that these networks can support high-speed, high-quality delivery of data and multimedia content.

The level of research and investment those types of networks will require dictates that they must be global in scope. But the ability to communicate and interconnect across the world shouldn't have to mean that a network in Canada must be identical to one in France, or even that one in Illinois must function exactly the same way as one in Indiana.

There are factions of the wireless world that love to duel, and that competitiveness is part of what gives this industry sector its vigor. I firmly believe that the many wireless network technologies in use today are as good as they are because of the high standards of excellence they must live up to. Now that competitive energy must be focused on developing ways to protect network investment while also helping carriers prepare for the new kind of networks this evolution will require.

Technology has enabled a free and fast flow of information to be exchanged, allowing ideas to be shared across cultures and allowing commercial interests to globalize. Technology developers and standards bodies must recognize that goal, and create platforms for the future that can help tie the past together.