On Thursday, I presented a case study on standardization in mobile technology in the United States and Europe/Asia. In the United States, the FCC decided not to set a mobile technology standard, instead deciding to allow for competition, industry, and the free market to decide its own standard. They believed that the competition would drive innovation in the field. Instead, three incompatible technologies emerged that has prevented the United States from progressing as quickly as other countries. In Europe/Asia, they adopted a single standard. Using this one standard has allowed them to update their systems more efficiently, quickly, and cheaply than the United States.

In my case study, I examined the question: what social and economic forces influence communication infrastructure? I would argue that various cultural influences in the countries in question resulted in their current mobile technology infrastructure. In the United States, there is a fear of big government and over-regulation/interference, tradition of isolationism, ultimate belief in the free market’s superiority, and an individualistic culture. These views may have lead the United States to decide against a standard. In Europe/Asia, there is a tradition of compromise, standardization, and corroboration across countries. For example, they have worked together on public transportation, transportation across borders, standardization of the Euro, etc. Also, many of these countries have in the past (and, in some cases, present) had collectivistic cultures or governments. These views and past collaborations may have allowed for such standardization across so many countries.

During discussion, I asked whether government setting a standard or letting the free market determine its own standards was better. Several students seemed to think that setting a standard sounded like it would allow for quicker innovation. I would have to agree. Looking at Europe as an example, it seems to have allowed them to update quickly enough to be several years ahead of us in mobile technology. Also, I asked whether quick and compatible innovation/upgrading or the preservation of the free market and business with less regulation in mobile industries was more important. One opinion expressed was that the preservation of the free market was more important in this instance than the compatible technologies. I can understand this point of view, because the government getting too involved in industry can definitely lead to mishaps. However, I believe that in the instance of fundamental communication infrastructure, standardization is a necessary evil. In some ways, by choosing a standard, we are giving up some possibilities that other standards could have offered. However, this opportunity cost seems less than the cost of not setting a standard which leads to slow innovation/upgrading, incompatibilities, and increased set up/upgrading costs.