| |
| ▲ | asdcplib 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Once upon a time, acquiring a standard involved writing to a far away address and then waiting "six to eight weeks" for a paper document to show up in your mailbox. By 1995 (when internet access became common) SMPTE was seventy years old. Certain, uh, expectations had become concretized by then, and it took considerable time and effort to overcome those. | |
| ▲ | kyrra an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Construction codes are still pay walled. NEC (electric) is $170: https://www.nfpa.org/product/nfpa-70-national-electrical-cod... IPC (plumbing) is $130: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/icc/iccipc2024 And there are many others. (I will say the YC company https://up.codes/ makes these much more accessible, and deals with local variants to these regulations) | | | |
| ▲ | cpgxiii 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because these bodies want to maintain a moat for the products made by member companies. No more, no less. A great example of this is the GigE Vision/GenICam standards that are used by basically all machine vision cameras, which were accessible to non-licensees but not usefully implementable (these standards explicitly prohibited their use in implementing any open source implementation of the standards). So essentially all they could be used for were (1) as a licensee producing closed-source software for their own cameras, or (2) you as customer trying to complain to your camera/software vendor that they failed to implement some part of the standard correctly. | | |
| ▲ | bborud 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | This even extends to how some standards are written: deliberately complex and poor work just to make it frustrating and ensure a high barrier of entry. And of course there are either no test suites or testing against them costs a fortune. This is the kind of thing politicians in a reasonable world would make illegal and subject to sanctions. |
| |
| ▲ | clickety_clack 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Back in the day when I was doing this kind of thing, we had to buy a whole load of British Standards. They are £100s each, and they each cover a small part of work. If you’re designing steel structures you need one for basic structural design, one for loads on structures, one for steel structural design, one for the steel sections themselves, one for foundation design, one for execution of steel structures, and many many more. It’s thousands of pounds. | |
| ▲ | kazinator 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [delayed] | |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think the benefits of charging for your work are mysterious. It's reasonable to believe that certain works should not be behind paywalls, but not understanding is kind of a confusing stance. | | |
| ▲ | seanhunter 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There was a time when buying the Ansi C standard cost over $200 but you could get Herb Schildt’s “Annotated Ansi C Standard” for $20, which some said reflected the value he added to the process. | | |
| ▲ | jjmarr 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Buying the ANSI C standard still costs about $300. Same for C++. https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/iso/isoiec98992024?sourc... Nobody does it. gcc/clang implement it from the "drafts", which are published online due to the need to discuss them prior to standardization. | | | |
| ▲ | ksec 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Somewhere along the line, especially with Internet in late 00s people understand the term Open to be the same as Free. When in reality they are not. But now it is all too late to debate and fix this. |
| |
| ▲ | geerlingguy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If your entire goal is to create a standard... it seems like giving anyone access to the materials needed to _adhere_ to said standard is prerequisite. Unless the goal is not to create standards, but instead to control access to said standard. | | |
| ▲ | andrewaylett 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The people requiring adherence to a specific standard are not the people who then need to pay to see what they're supposed to be adhering to :(. Strictly, just because the standard costs money doesn't mean that the information within it is otherwise unavailable. The C++ spec is an amusing example of this: the actual spec costs $$$, but the final draft is freely available. I can't imagine they sell many copies. I know that back when I was employed to work on a C++ compiler I only had access to the draft. If demonstrating conformance is important, I suspect that the cost of access to specifications is only going to be a small fraction of the cost of certification. And as I understand things, it's certification that's the target of charging for specifications. | |
| ▲ | cortesoft 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I am not sure if this is what happens, but I could imagine an arrangement where you have a standard, and in order to advertise that you meet the standard, you are required to pay a fee to the standards body, and that fee is used to fund an audit to verify that you adhere to the standard. It would be nice if, for example, USB did this so that I know a USB cable actually works with a specific standard before I buy it. | | |
| ▲ | AlotOfReading an hour ago | parent [-] | | USB-IF does in fact do this and has for years. Certified devices are allowed to have a "Certified USB" logo somewhere on them, usually placed next to the regulatory compliance marks. |
| |
| ▲ | thx67 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In the world they operated in when this started was in a big corporate environment, gatekeeping was a feature. Anyone who needed a standard could already get it for free through their companies records department. At my first corporate job the first thing I did was checkout and read all the MPEG standards. But I agree, the whale we need to go after is IEEE. | | |
| ▲ | wowczarek 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the whale we need to go after is IEEE. I wholeheartedly second this. I'm an individual member and a member of a specific IEEE society that sponsors a specific standard and I still have to pay for a copy. In contrast, the same standard has been adapted for specific industries and there are IEC, ITU and a SMPTE specs adopting it and those I can get for free. Doubly irritating because some of the most crucial standards like the 802 family are all paywalled. And it's not like it's warranted because if I need a standard I'm probably a vendor. Take high-speed Ethernet for example, there is such a proliferation of media types, lane counts, line encodings, FEC options and speed combinations that an engineer needs a reference from the source, and instead it's either third-party information or "stolen" PDFs. | | |
| ▲ | thx67 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The whole world benefits when our infrastructure can stay on spec and those specs are freely available for everyone. Specs are the vaccines holding civilization together. |
|
| |
| ▲ | btown 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Both can be true. Promoting a standard isn’t free, and having licensing and certification fees, especially in an industry where such practices make a standardization org get taken more seriously, is a reasonable strategy. We’re lucky that our industry moved in a different direction! | | |
| ▲ | dare944 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | IP licensing and certification are entirely separate from access to standards documentation. Of course certifying conformance to a standard is going to have a cost. But publishing documentation that has already been written is effectively free. |
| |
| ▲ | duped 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think people have a flipped understanding of how these standards come to be. They don't gather industry experts in a conference room and whiteboard out a perfect design that everyone agrees on and then go off to build products. What happens is that companies develop products and services, and at some point it becomes more useful for those products to inter operate and protocols/interfaces between them need to be agreed upon. Oftentimes it's the mutant bastard children of the existing approaches by multiple stakeholders, encumbered by patents and legacy. Adherence to a standard is not the goal, defining interoperability between existing systems is. And everyone participating is already a paying member of SMPTE. | | |
| ▲ | asdcplib 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is mostly true, with some exceptions. The Digital Cinema standards (428, 429, 430, etc.) were in fact developed in conference rooms and on whiteboards. It was a greenfield application with no incumbent formats. | |
| ▲ | plorkyeran 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have written software which needed to support SMPTE standards, and to do so I pirated the standard. The standards are initially written to reflect existing systems, but then more systems are developed later. |
| |
| ▲ | stogot 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s a proprietary standard moving to an open standard |
| |
| ▲ | PaulHoule 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well, for ISO it is a business model. And for a lot of standards which have limited interest in a certain industry and you are probably going to spend $2000 on gear to make measurements compatible with the standard it is not so bad to spend 133 CHF on something. On the other hand I served on a committee and wrote a technical report that costs 133 CHF and personally I'm a bit annoyed that (1) I can't send you a link to read it for free and (2) a friend of mine who worked for the US government and is the only person I ever met who knew how to do complex modelling in OWL couldn't contribute her writing to it because everything US government employees write is supposed to be public domain. | | | |
| ▲ | lars_francke 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As someone working in standardization: I don't know any standardization organization where the people doing the actual work of writing standards are paid for their work. I certainly am not. In the organizations I know - including ISO - the money is basically exclusively spent on "overhead". | | |
| ▲ | gwerbin 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is "overhead" a euphemism for administrator salaries? | | |
| ▲ | lars_francke 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Partially. Yes. Look at the budgets of these orgs and you'll see what I mean. I use the term similar to who it's used for non-profit. The orgs I'm involved with are almost exclusively not involved in the actual standards creation. If the secretariats were to shut down tomorrow I'd say the actual work on the standards could continue without anyone noticing. There is a reason that at least the EU is considering modernizing the system. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/consultations/pub... ISO, CEN, CENELEC, ETSI are stuck very much in the past. So yes. Overhead. | |
| ▲ | JdeBP 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No. In such organizations the money goes towards all of the usual things such as tax, building rental, utilities, and licences, as well as employee salaries and social security contributions. BSI Group, for example, paid 26.1% tax (25% corporation tax plus some other stuff) according to its 2025 financial statement. In my direct experience, the people who write the standard texts get a room to sit in, power for laptops, a whiteboard, and tea/coffee and biscuits, a few days per year. | |
| ▲ | cortesoft 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It costs money to operate a website, too. |
|
|
|
|
