>I find this disingenious. It's quite easy to argue that WAP and SMS are
>(or were) "the international standards" as that's what everybody else
>decided to standardize on for mobile phones, while the Docomo folks
>decided to "go it alone" with cHTML and e-mail. I expect that if WAP
>had not failed, we'd hear you saying that Docomo was "s-t-u-p-i-d"
>not to go with those standards, either.
Choosing WAP or cHTML is a question of one [new specialised] standard
versus another [existing universal standard]. The emphasis here is on
interoperability. For WAP interoperability had to be ensured by agreement,
for cHTML interoperability was ensured due to its compatibility with the
non-wireless internet.
Going it alone with PDC as opposed to going for a standard is an entirely
different matter. They had three choices: 1) non-standard, 2) choose an
existing standard, 3) try to establish a new standard. They chose
non-standard.
If the Japanese had done what they did later with PHS (choice #3), then
that would have been still OK even if their efforts to establish a new
standard were blessed with little success.
The fact is that they did not choose any existing standard nor tried to
establish a new standard out of protectionism, which later back fired on
them. This, I call stupid, yes, indeed.
I am not saying that it is stupid not to know in advance what standard will
become the most widely adoped one. Far from it. I even believe that it is
beneficial to have some competition between standards, such as between GSM
and CDMA One.
The point is that if you are going to do something new that is not
compatible with anything else but likely to have an impact on
infrastructure for years to come, then at least go and find yourself some
similar minded folks and agree on doing this new thing such that it is
interoperable with what others are doing (not necssarily everybody).
So, for example, if the Japanese had joined forces with the Koreans (a
rather unlikely scenario, I admit) to combine their efforts in building a
new system and standardise between the two countries, perhaps inviting
Taiwan and/or Singapore, this would have led to something that might have
had the chance for a Pan-Asian cellular standard. Even though this might
have reduced GSM's success in Asia, it would have been non-protectionist
pro-cooperation and therefore applaudable.
If PDC was just another proprietary system, one could say "they didn't know
any better". But unfortunately, protectionism is designed so deep into it
that it is impossible to give them that benefit of doubt. They wanted their
system so desperately to be different that they took design decisions just
for the purpose of being incompatible. Such details are for instance, the
reverse direction of uplink and downlink, placing downlink in the US 800
MHz band while placing the uplink in the GSM 900 MHz band, using different
duplex separation frequencies for different patches of the band etc etc.
This created a legacy that made it incredibly difficult if not impossible
to convert to a standard when the Japanese government wanted to do so. I
bet that one thought ran through their minds: "Oh boy, have we been so
stupid?!".
Then again, introducing GSM compatible SIM cards and adopting the TAP
protocol for settlement would have done a lot for interoperability even
with a different system.
>Instead point out *why* that decision was made at the time
Protectionism.
> and what could have been done on the parts of all parties to avoid the
>problem.
Protectionists do not normally realise nor admit that they create problems.
>you run around slamming things as dumb
Protectionism is dumb.
>while providing no insight into why
>the decision was made that way
Provided herewith. Sorry, if it has come across that way.
> (aside from some people, maybe an entire
>nation, being idiots)
Not true. First, I said it was stupid to go non-standard (past tense!) and
later I also made it clear that I support those Japanese who are
non-protectionist, pro-cooperation. I have also expressed my respect and
admiration of the Japanese effort to establish PHS as a cordless standard.
Further, I applied the very same standards to the European refusal to adopt
PHS out of false pride and protectionism.
For the avoidance of doubt, I use a well established convention: when
referring to "the Japanese" or "the Europeans" it does not necessarily mean
the entire population but those who are concerned depending on context.
>and how we can avoid such problems in the future.
While PDC was a non-standard protectionist design, it would appear the
Japanese have learned their lesson. PHS is a good example how things can
work out when instead of going non-standard one chooses to go a third way
of creating a new standard if the choices available do not appeal.
Ironically, the positive outcome of PDC is that the Japanese have learned
from the problems they had created with it for themselves and did things
differently with PHS and also with 3G.
Although, the DoCoMo roll-out of a non 3GPP compliant UMTS network remains
a cause for concern. However, this is offset by J-Phone who have said they
will roll-out a 3GPP compliant network (VodaFone influence???). With KDDI
on the Qualcomm route, this would lead to Japan going from most isolated
and non-standard to most diverse with each of the three 3G networks
representing one of the three flavours of 3G each.
regards
benjamin
[ Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Wed Aug 1 17:16:50 2001