In November end, VOICE&DATA organized an industry meet to discuss various issues, opportunities and challenges for telecom service providers. Part of the discussion focused on the experience and learnings so far. Where did CLECs go wrong, where global carriers erred, what mistakes did vendors make, and so on. And how broadband succeeded in Korea, mobile Internet in Japan, voice over IP networks in China, and the regulatory regime for convergence in Malaysia...

For the first time, I consciously began to wonder: why all the positive examples from Asia and all the negative ones from the West?

The Western world has always had this conception that Asians can do hardly anything with technology, till some Japanese companies taught them a lesson. So the grudging admission finally came with an explanation that Japan was an exception because it was too closely integrated with the US economy, and also came a footnote that Asian companies could only do product enhancements but not innovate. Then came the Koreans who innovated. Then the Chinese who cost-effectively manufactured. And finally the Indians, who through their brainwork in software, built the intelligence, first into the computers, then into networks.

With all explanations running out, it was said that the market was there, in the West. Well, that was true. Not any more. Look at GSM. By December 2001, Asia had close to 215 million GSM subscribers as compared to Europe’s 365 million... and was growing at a much faster rate. However, in the ETSI standardization process, Asian operators are only indirectly represented through the GSM MoU, whereas much smaller service providers from Europe are represented directly.

In other words, some are still considered more equal than others. Some may go to the extent of terming it racism. If it can be there in cricket, why not in telecom?

I disagree with Dalmiyaism there. I feel we cannot simply blame them. Here is Japan, which has made the world sit up and take notice. India or even China have not bothered to go there and find out why it has succeeded. We have willingly been part of the good-and-the-bad-in-WAP debate. Considering the fact that we are a relatively new market and are free to choose any model, we should have seriously studied i-mode’s success. Very little is known in India about NTT DoCoMo except the name but we know everything about Vodaphones and Verizons.

It is time to act.
To start with, why can’t we decide what technology we will use in future? Each of our markets are unique, no doubt. But they are more similar to each other than they are to the US or European markets. We can make a beginning.

I am—let us be very clear on that—not suggesting that we should have separate standards. What I am saying is that since we have the fastest growing markets, we should have a bigger say in standards making.

And if you say regional politics will come in the way, I refuse to believe. In the height of Indo-Pakistan tension, the visiting Chinese premier talks more about business than about cross border terrorism or Kashmir. Business, not politics, can today dictate relations. Who knows, it may change the political equations as well.

Wishful thinking, did you say?
I concede. But all success stories start with a little bit of wishful thinking. Don’t they?

Shyamanuja Das