The Need for Standards

 Last update: 2003/08/08

The MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 cases described above demonstrate the power of communication standards as the enablers of communication. But what is a standard? For several reasons there is a great deal of confusion about this word and the purpose of this page is to try and dissipate it. 

If you take the Webster's under the entry "standard" you will find the following definition: 

a conspicuous object (as a banner) formerly carried at the top of a pole and used to mark a rallying point especially in battle or to serve as an emblem 

This refers to the original meaning of the word and is indeed a good definition. A standard is a model, a reference to be followed, if one feels that, by following that guide, one is well served - of course that presumes one is given the freedom to choose one's guide, which is not always the case. 

In the same dictionary one finds another definition immediately after: 

Something that is established by authority, custom or general consent as a model or example to be followed. 

Most of this definition is also OK. Custom or general consent are subjective matters and one should be free to decide to adhere to them or not - it is true, however, that there are cases when customs can become rather constraining. The problem is with the word "authority". 

The attitude of some PAs, which sometimes feel they should impose the use of certain communication standards by the force of law and verify compliance with law-enforcement officers, is unfortunately reflected in this definition. The legal nature of some communication standards is a problem, and a particularly severe one in some industries. 

The broadcasting industry has traditionally been regulated in all countries and its technical standards have a legal status in many countries that have adopted them. A similar approach used to be followed in the telecommunication industry. This is reflected in the fact that the ITU, obviously including its ITU-R and ITU-T branches, is a Treaty Organisation (actually an Agency of the United Nations), i.e. one where governments are the signatories and have the right to be represented. Recently things have started changing with private concerns acquiring the right to become members and vote. 

This mixing between technical, political and legal matters is one reason why certain standards never got approved in ITU, HDTV being one case. This is also why ITU-R SG 10 "Audio Broadcasting", that should have felt "deprived" (in the inverted logic of SDOs) of a piece of work that rightfully belonged to them - audio coding for Digital Audio Broadcasting - actually welcomed the work that eventually led to the MPEG-1 Audio standard. They did so because they were realistic in their assessment that the explosive mixture of technical and political issues that dominates their committees would never have allowed them to deliver. 

This does not mean that the ITU is unable to produce effective standards. The video coding work in ITU-T has produced some excellent standards like H.261, but this has been achieved by a group of "Experts". 

A basic rule in standard development is that technical and political problems should not be solved at the same time. Good engineering sense suggests that, if the problems are uncorrelated, at least as a first approximation, it is better to "solve one problem at a time". Once the first, technical, problem of developing standards, is solved, one can attack the second, understandably more difficult, of converting technical standards into law, assuming that such a step is still needed, something for which I am personally still in search of a good example. 

All the above has been said for the purpose of introducing my definition of standardisation: 

the process by which individuals of a group recognise the advantage of all doing certain things in an agreed way and codify that agreement. 

Forget about law and authority. An agreement is a compromise between total satisfaction of one side and total dissatisfaction of the other. If one accepts a compromise it is only because the perceived advantages earned by entering into an agreement exceed the perceived disadvantages caused by the accepted limitation of freedom. Standards are like contracts regulated by Civil Code. You use them if you want to buy a pair of oxen or for anything else: you like them you sign them, you don't like them you shun them. 

It is to be noted that my definition of standardisation contains the one found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a special case: 

Standardisation, in industry: imposition of standards that permit large production runs of component parts that are readily fitted to other parts without adjustment 

This is the manufacturing-driven view of standards, different from the interoperability-driven view. Standards are agreed upon because it is more convenient to, say, use nuts and bolts from a finite set of sizes, because economies of scale can be achieved. This is exactly what happened for MPEG-2 decoder chips. But my definition still holds. We do certain things in an agreed common way because we, the parties in the agreement, see a benefit in doing so. In the example, it is more convenient to have an assured source of nuts and bolts or electronic components developed independently of specific needs once and for all, instead of having to develop the components every time they are needed. 

There is one thing that I do not like in Britannica's definition, though. The word "imposition" is misplaced. Following a standard should be a free choice, not the "imposition" of anybody. This is again a proof of how this innocent word "standard", that should sound libertarian because it should be the result of a free adherence to a group, possibly motivated by the most down-to-earth reasons, is again associated with some remote authority using the word as if it were wielding a weapon. 

This does not mean that PAs should have no role in communication matters. I believe that richness of information sources is a prerequisite for upholding democracy. Therefore, when a monopoly of information supply is being established, based on some restrictive technology, they should not give their nod just because the case has been made that otherwise that particular content distribution business cannot sustain itself. These are excuses because the companies making the claim are exactly those who have thwarted all attempts at developing standards that would have enabled a sustainable, although different, type of business. The answer of public authorities to the creation of monopolies should just be: "no way, make the right standards", instead of saying: "you are a naughty boy, but you can get away with it". More about this later.

My definition of standardisation is not particularly revolutionary and is perfectly in line with the original meaning of the word standard. Even the very organisations that drive the work in international standards setting follow it. An example? Most countries in the world use A4-size papers, an element of an ISO standard (ISO 216:1975). The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is the ISO NB for the United States; still ANSI does not use A4-size paper. Inconsistency? Absolutely not. Simply, for ANSI as an organisation, the perceived advantage earned by the international (in this case) agreement of using A4-size papers falls below the perceived disadvantages caused by the limitation of freedom of keeping on using letter size paper. 

On a personal note, though, I would rather cede part of my freedom and in exchange get rid of the problem of my English version of Windows and of all application programs that assume that all documents have letter size because they have been written in English (English=American, maybe?) and forces me to reset the printer every time I try to print.

Copyright © 2003 chiariglione.org