The Role of the ITU in Standarization Pre-eminence Impotence, or Rubber Stamp?

by Stanley Besen, J. Farrell


Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price
Add to Cart Paperback11 pages Free

This article, reprinted from Telecommunications Policy, argues that the historic preeminence of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in setting international standards is likely to be increasingly threatened by the regional standards organizations (RSOs) and by formal or informal coordination among the RSOs. The interests the RSOs represent are powerful enough that the ITU cannot ignore agreements among them, nor is it likely to be able to set standards if they cannot agree. At the same time their size, structure and procedures are likely to make them more effective at agreeing on standards than the ITU, despite the latter's attempts to improve its procedures. The authors conclude that, whether or not their participants intended it, RSOs threaten the ITU's pre-eminence in setting telecommunications standards. The RSOs are apt to be swifter and more successful in reaching agreement than is the ITU. Moreover, their participants have enough authority in the market to ensure that agreements among them can neither be ignored nor seriously disputed. Thus the ITU's attempt to retain its pre-eminence will probably fail.

Originally published in: Telecommunications Policy, August 1991, pp. 311-321.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.