Remix.run Logo
williamDafoe 3 days ago

Then you wouldn't have 3G cellular. Or 4G. Or 5G cellular. It costs tens of millions of dollars to drive around san diego in those vans taking traces of a new cellular system design and discovering improvements so that the standard works everywhere else on earth (San Diego is a worst case that's comparable to Hong Kong.). We wouldn't have CDMA cellular. Or LTE cellular. Recall that CDMA cellular was 3x more efficient in bits/second/Hz than 2G/GSM, so that cell phone providers could literally give you a free phone or PAY YOU to throw away your phone and they would still come out ahead, financially.

adrian_b 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Your claim is weird.

No standard has ever been developed using money obtained by selling copies of the standard.

The kind of work described by you, which is indeed needed for developing a new communication standard cannot be made profitable by selling copies of a text describing its results.

If such work provides valuable techniques that are necessary for the implementation of the standard, they are patented and those who want to implement the standard for commercial purposes must license the patents.

Any owner of a device that implements a standard has the right to know what the standard does, so all standards should be distributed if not for free only for a small price covering the distribution expenses and not for the prices with many digits that are in use now.

The big prices that are requested for certain standards have a single purpose, to protect the incumbent companies from new competitors, or sometimes to prevent the owners of some devices to do whatever they want with what they own.

The very high prices that are demanded for many standards nowadays are a recent phenomenon, of the same kind with the fact that nowadays most sellers of electronic devices no longer provide schematics and maintenance manuals for them as it was the rule until a few decades ago, in order to force the owners to either never repair their devices or to repair them at a few authorized repair shops, which do not have competitors. These kinds of harmful behavior of the corporations have been made possible by the lack of adequate legislation for consumer protection, as the legislators in most countries are much less interested in making laws for the benefit of their voters than they are interested in things like facilitating the surveillance of the voters by the government, to prevent any opposition against unpopular measures.

In the more distant past, there was no way to download standards over the Internet for a negligible cost, but you could still avoid to pay for a printed standard by consulting it in a public library and making a copy. There were no secret standards that you could not access without paying a yearly subscription of thousands of $, like today.

troupo 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

It also becomes an issue when governmental/public standards start referencing these.

semessier 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> No standard has ever been developed using money obtained by selling copies of the standard.

unfortunately there are examples in the Telecom world

JAlexoid 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Most of the development costs are recouped through licenses on the base-stations and somewhat on the very low patent licenses per chip/device, not the price of access to the standard.

Back to the the HDMI standard, the licensing fee has already been paid by the hardware manufacturer. Restricting software is unnecessary, as the patent license fees have already been collected on the device.

throwaway2037 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh, interesting. Can you share some examples?

MisterTea 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Then you wouldn't have 3G cellular. Or 4G. Or 5G cellular.

I don't get it. Why would making a standard freely accessible impede its adoption?

sleepybrett 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

He's claiming they wouldn't be developed because why develop a standard you can't cash in on.

pennomi 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Which is silly, specifically for telecoms, because get don’t make their money on the standard, they make it on providing the service.

Kwpolska 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In the telecom world, that would be a pretty terrible business model, as the list of entities who would need a copy of the standard is relatively short.

all2 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The people developing standards are in the business of developing standards. It makes sense to want to make money on the thing you work on.

kalleboo 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The people developing standards are in the business of developing standards

Are they? Usually these standards consortiums are composed of the companies that develop products based on the standards, where their products gain value from having a standard (a Blu-ray player and a TV with no way to connect them together is worth less). Even if they couldn't gatekeep the standards they would still have developed them out of necessity.

crote 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is no business developing standards. All the technical parts are written by engineers from the various companies wanting to implement the standard. All that's left for the standards association is to host a mailing list and potentially organise some in-person meetings. And hosting the resulting PDF doesn't exactly cost $4000 / download either.

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
kmeisthax 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's what patents are for. The handful of standards that actually cost money to produce (i.e. MPEG, 3GPP, LTE etc) have patent holders that are specifically required to provide "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" licensing terms. If paywalling the spec paid for those standards we wouldn't have had a decade of HTML5 video not specifying a baseline codec.

ethin 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, I'm curious about this too. I would think that making a standard freely available (and at most doing what NVMe does where you pay membership dues) would make the standard be adopted far more universally than putting up weird barriers to even access the standard.

throwaway2037 3 days ago | parent [-]

    > and at most doing what NVMe does where you pay membership dues
No trolling: What is the difference between "pay[ing] membership dues" and paying a fee to access the standard (docs)? To me, they feel the same.
ethin 3 days ago | parent [-]

Honest answer (since your not trolling): The difference is more of time than anything else. If I somehow find $5000 to buy access to the PCIe spec, my understanding is that it's per access request. NVMe doesn't charge at all for their specifications; instead, you can join for just $500 per year last time I checked.

jeffjeffbear 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think the fee to get access to the standard is generating much income for anyone. Most of what your talking about seems to be money made from licensing of the technology, right?

kalleboo 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Bad example, the 3GPP standards are not at all closed like HDMI 2.1 is, unlike HDMI 2.1 there are open source implementations https://osmocom.org/projects

bigfatkitten 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you referring to the 3GPP specifications that you, I or anyone else can go and read absolutely free of charge?

https://www.3gpp.org/

forrestthewoods 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Then you wouldn't have 3G cellular.

What does a specification being paywalled vs open have to do 3G cellular existing or not?

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That sounds wonderful. A world without widespread high bandwidth wireless connectivity would be a better world.