The "5G Race" Storyline is Wrong, As Are So Many Others

The “5G race” story framework seemingly is irresistible: there will be winners and losers, with the winners moving fastest to deploy the networks. The only problem with the storyline is that it likely will prove to be false. 

Does anybody really believe being “first” with analog mobile services, or any of the past digital generations (2G, 3G, 4G) has mattered? Has it changed the economic positions of nations, or industries, beyond what we would expect for other reasons?

In other words, does early or late adoption actually matter? A fair assessment might be that it could matter for industry suppliers, in terms of market share. Some might argue Huawei gained from early supply of some 5G infrastructure, while Nokia suffered. 

On the other hand, the new emphasis on open and virtual networks opens the door for new suppliers, which might make early victories by incumbents irrelevant over the longer term, as new firms enter the supply chain. 

“Early or late” might temporarily provide advantage or disadvantage for particular mobile operators in some markets. But making sense of the advantage also must include the momentum and growth profiles of each firm before 5G. Maybe a firm gains or loses share in 5G because it already had been gaining share in 4G, for reasons unrelated to 5G deployment. 

Among the historical examples of the irrelevance of the early-late paradigm is the development of several technologies in the U.S. market, where adoption always has been “late.” That is said to be true now of U.S. 5G speeds. It is true for the moment, but ultimately the relevant gap will disappear. 

That does not mean U.S. speeds, on average, will be among the top 10 globally, for example. U.S. mobile speeds are slow, and have been relatively slow, for 4G services, compared to many other markets. The point is that it will not matter, in user experience or other expected benefits (for industry, firms, economic growth, innovation). 

But the “U.S. is behind” storyline has been used often over the last several decades. Indeed, where it comes to plain old voice service, the U.S. is falling behind meme never went away.

In the past, it has been argued that the United States was behind, or falling behind, for use of mobile phones, smartphones, text messaging, broadband coverage, fiber to home, broadband speed or broadband price. 

In the case of mobile phone usage, smartphone usage, text message usage, broadband coverage or speed, as well as broadband prices, the “behind” storyline has proven incorrect, over time. 

Some even have argued the United States was falling behind in spectrum auctions. That clearly also has proven wrong. What such observations often miss is a highly dynamic environment, where apparently lagging U.S. metrics quickly are closed.

To be sure, adoption rates have sometimes lagged other regions. Some storylines are repeated so often they seem true, and lagging statistics often are “true,” early on. The story which never seems to be written is that there is a pattern here: early slowness is overcome; performance metrics eventually climb; availability, price and performance gaps are closed over time. 

The early storylines often are correct, as far as they go. That U.S. internet access is slow and expensive, or that internet service providers have not managed to make gigabit speeds available on a widespread basis, can be correct for a time. Those storylines rarely--if ever--hold up long term. U.S. gigabit coverage now is about 80 percent, for example. 

Other statements, such as the claim that U.S. internet access prices or mobile prices are high, are not made in context, or qualified and adjusted for currency, local prices and incomes or other relevant inputs, including the comparison methodology itself. 

Both U.S. fixed network internet prices and U.S. mobile costs have dropped since 2000, for example. 

The point is that the “U.S. is behind” storyline seems irresistible. But it also ultimately is meaningless. All the relevant gaps were eventually overcome. One possible explanation is that U.S. service providers, who earn high profit margins compared to most other countries, upgrade deliberately, to maintain margins, rather than necessarily rushing to “be first.”

Consumer demand also is an issue. It can be argued that U.S. consumers wait to see value before adopting new technology, instead of rushing to buy the latest technology “just to be early adopters.”

The point is that the “5G is a race” is an irresistible storyline. But it arguably will be proven false. Countries, firms and consumers will adopt 5G when it makes sense, when it offers value, or simply as a byproduct of buying some other product, such as a desired phone model. 

That is, in substantial part, related to another problem journalists face, namely the “next big thing” storyline that becomes news because that is why proponents and vendors are pushing. Many journalists would probably agree that they tire of writing stories about the next big thing, or the present big thing, over and over again. It seems to be an occupational hazard. 

But the point is that easy storylines are irresistible for possibly lazy journalists. To be sure, deadlines create the need for story construction tools, including the venerable “two sides” framework (he said, she said). We all use such tools. 

That is why elections are characterized as horse races, or why verification matters. Still, some might argue that a bit of  laziness is why verification is sorely lacking, or why more original stories are not routinely created. It is not easy to do so routinely. It is harder work. But sometimes it leads to “better” storytelling.