Feeds

US vs Europe wireless trade war looms

Threatening to refer the EU and ETSI to the WTO is fighting talk...

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

The essential guide to IT transformation

A couple of months back US Federal Communications Commission chairman William Kennard said he welcomed an EU decision not to discriminate against US cellular standards. We said (Earlier story) he was actually issuing a coded warning. Which now seems to have been the case, as US trade representative Charlene Barshefsky yesterday told reporters that the US was "very, very concerned" about European moves to shut US mobile phone manufacturers out of Europe. In what constituted the most bellicose statement on the subject yet Barshefsky said the US was looking at a variety of WTO (World Trade Organisation) issues connected with the adoption of third generation cellular standards. She also set out the US government's stall on the matter. The US government wants the EU "not to adopt exclusionary standards and instead let the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) and other international forums look at this issue." By threatening the EU with the WTO, Barshefsky could be on the brink of unleashing a full-scale trade war. The WTO is the international club set up to promote free trade and the abolition of barriers, and regularly hears claims from the US, Europe and Japan that one or more of the other two are unfairly restricting trade via tariff barriers, regulations and so on. But if the US decides to go the distance it will be taking matters a notch further, because it will have to argue that a general European standards definition process is an unfair restriction of trade. This isn't entirely breaking fresh ground - the standards set by many countries in many areas (electrical, automotive, food being obvious examples) have been attacked in the past for being restrictive. These however tend to be standards which at least ostensibly are aimed at protecting consumers, whereas the standard the US will now be taking a pop at is one designed to benefit consumers and to stimulate the adoption of new technology. Barshefsky's claim that it's designed to shut US manufacturers out is therefore fighting talk. That will be helpful collateral damage for the likes of Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens and Alcatel, but it's not a primary objective. The key difference between the US and Europe on wireless systems is that the US favours letting the market decide on standards, whereas Europe drives them via ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute). ETSI fulfils some of the functions of the US FCC, but it defines things much more, and more broadly, and doesn't regulate as the FCC does. By calling for the third generation standard to be 'looked at' (note that she doesn't say 'defined') internationally Barshefsky is effectively demanding that ETSI throw away much of the work it's done on the European G3 standard, UMTS, and ultimately is calling for ETSI to stop defining standards at all. But she can't be calling for the ITU to define a single standard, because if we're going to let the market decide, a single standard globally will also be restrictive. This will be a deeply unattractive prospect to the European industry, which is poised to start rolling out UMTS services. The Europeans will talk, certainly, but they'll be looking to use the cards they already hold to better their position at the ITU, and they'll also use other bodies to fight their corner. Nobody in Europe is going to be willing to capitulate entirely to the US, and they'll point to the success of GSM in Europe and the disastrously slow deployment of digital technology in the US as proof of their point. Hilariously, the US will no doubt point to this as evidence of the opposite - Europe's strong position in digital wireless, they'll say, has been unfairly won via the imposition of restrictive standards which damage US manufacturers. So it looks like it could be war. ® Click for more stories

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)
Clampdown on clickbait ... and El Reg is OK with this
No, thank you. I will not code for the Caliphate
Some assignments, even the Bongster decline must
Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
Founder (and internet passport fan) now says privacy is precious
TROLL SLAYER Google grabs $1.3 MEEELLION in patent counter-suit
Chocolate Factory hits back at firm for suing customers
Mozilla's 'Tiles' ads debut in new Firefox nightlies
You can try turning them off and on again
Facebook, Google and Instagram 'worse than drugs' says Miley Cyrus
Italian boffins agree with popette's theory that haters are the real wrecking balls
Sit tight, fanbois. Apple's '$400' wearable release slips into early 2015
Sources: time to put in plenty of clock-watching for' iWatch
Facebook to let stalkers unearth buried posts with mobe search
Prepare to HAUNT your pal's back catalogue
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.