The Telecommunication Standardisation Process: Can it be ‘Reformed’ to Support ‘De-Regulation’?

  • Richard Hawkins
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)


The current conditions under which the telecommunication industry is ‘governed’ — in the dual sense of being both ‘controlled’ and ‘enabled’ — are described in a plethora of often ill-defined and frequently contradictory terms. One of the most ill-defined terms is ‘de-regulation’, implying that the role of regulation is diminishing, and that the quantity of regulations is lessening — implications that are contrary to fact in most instances. The widespread acceptance of ‘de-regulation’ as an operational concept in the telecommunication industry, however, has some especially significant ramifications as the technical configuration of both public and private networks becomes more decentralised — i.e. as the ‘intelligence’ controlling individual network functionalities becomes distributed throughout the network. One assumption supporting the ‘de-regulation’ concept is that technical co-ordination can now best be achieved through an industry-led standardisation process, rather than through the formal controls of a public administration or regulator. Timely, non-proprietary standards, it is argued, will keep the network environment ‘open’ to potential new market entrants. The distribution of network ‘intelligence’ throughout the public network, however, can only be achieved through the widespread deployment of specialised computer applications. This also distributes much of the control over the development and evolution of standards, as, increasingly, public network operators and equipment suppliers must share this control with computer and software vendors.


European Union Telecommunication Industry Public Network Telecommunication Sector European Telecommunication Standard Institute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baggott, R. (1986) ‘By Voluntary Agreement: The Politics of Instrument Selection’, Public Administration, Vol. 64, Spring, pp. 51–67.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, A. (1990) ‘Technical Harmonisation as a Political Project’, in G. Locksley, (ed.), The Single European Market and the Information and Communication Technologies, London: Bellhaven.Google Scholar
  3. Besen, S. M. (1995) ‘The Standards Processes in Telecommunications and Information Technology’, in R. Hawkins, R. Mansell and J. Skea (eds.), Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness: the Politics and Economics of Standards in Natural and Technical Environments, Cheltenham. Edward Elgar, 1995, pp. 136–146.Google Scholar
  4. Breyer, S. (1992) Regulation and its Reform, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. European Commission (1990) Commission Green Paper on the Development of EuropeanGoogle Scholar
  5. Standardization: Action for Faster Technological Integration in Europe, COM(90) 456 final, Brussels, 8 October.Google Scholar
  6. Hawkins, R. (1995) Standards for Communication Technologies: Negotiating Institutional Biases in Network Design’, in R. Mansell and R. Silverstone (eds.), Communication by Design: The Politics of Information and Communication Technologies, Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  7. a) ‘The Public Sector Role in the Development of Information Technology Standardization Strategies’, OECD STI Review,Summer, (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  8. b) ‘Standards-Making as Technological Diplomacy: Assessing Objectives and Methodologies in Standards Institutions’, in R. Hawkins, R. Mansell and J. Skea (eds.), Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness: the Politics and Economics of Standards in Natural and Technical Environments,Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 147–159.Google Scholar
  9. ) ‘Changing Expectations: Voluntary Standards and the Regulation of European Telecommunication’, Communications and Strategies,No. 11, 3rd Quarter, September, pp. 53–85.Google Scholar
  10. ) ‘The Doctrine of Regionalism: A New Dimension for International Standardization in Telecommunication’, Telecommunications Policy,Vol. 16, No. 4, May/June, pp. 339–353.Google Scholar
  11. Lecraw, D. J. (1984) ‘Some Economic Effects of Standards’, Applied Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 507–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1995) ICT Standardisation in the New Global Context,Paris: OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Committee for Computer and Communications Policy, DSTI/ICCP(95)2, 29 March.Google Scholar
  13. Reddy, M. N. (1990) ‘Product Self-Regulation: A Paradox of Technology Policy’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 38, pp. 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tassey, G. (1991) ‘The Functions of Technology Infrastructure in a Competitive Economy’, Research Policy, Vol. 20, pp. 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Hawkins
    • 1
  1. 1.Science Policy Research Unit Mantell BuildingUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations