It has been quite some time since the idea of national “industrial policy” has had much currency in the United States, but 6G mobile network platforms seem to be shaping up as one area where attitudes could change, especially in the areas of indigenous supply chain. To be sure, 3G and 4G have been viewed as arenas for industrial policy in other parts of the world, and 6G is viewed as an area of policy for China.
Despite the growing interest in 6G standards, it might not be so clear how leadership leads to advantage that can be reaped by countries, suppliers, service providers or consumers. The Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions speaks of “core technologies and recommended government actions,” “rapid innovation and development” and “common national purpose.”
Referring to 5G, ATIS notes the advantages of “development and early deployments” that, in a 6G context, might also confer leadership of “ideas, development, adoption and rapid commercialization of 6G.”
The idea is to focus on ways to “complement–not abandon or usurp–global standards in the ICT sector.” Key is “leadership of ideas.”
ATIS says “leadership begins with identifying a vision for the next decade,” although some related competencies include AI-Enabled Advanced Networks and Services, advanced antenna and radio systems, multi-access networks and likely a few key use cases.
As a practical matter, that means “defining the technological breakthroughs that can lead the U.S. to sustainable technology leadership, with incentives for research and development and early investment.
Those steps, in turn, are viewed as vital to promoting time to market and “wide scale commercial adoption.”
More tactically, ATIs suggests tax credits for development in areas where U.S. firms might lead, continued spectrum policy support and support for efforts to commercialize 6G use cases.
None of that would sound unusual, in the context of government policy in the 3G, 4G and now 5G eras. It is a mix of policies to spur supply and demand. Similar approaches arguably were common when many other nations--China, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Israel--likewise chose to target economic growth in leadership, and as many others now also intend (Malaysia, Thailand, India and others).
The methods will vary, but the idea is to focus effort, perhaps always easier on the supply than the demand side, but both have roles.
It also is not too soon to argue what ultimately will matter most is not standards, which, by definition, will be global, but the ability to usefully deploy technology. By definition, every firm and nation will have access to the standards.
But some firms, nations and regions might hope to create competencies in supply, or advantageous demand profiles. Scale, experience curves and intellectual property will matter. But so will skill at the application of new technology and leverage of existing assets.
Were that not the case, we should never see significant differences between productivity gains, for example, among any countries. As we used to say, tele-density and economic development should be directly related. And yet benefits are differential, even when tele-density, or internet usage, or network speeds, are identical or similar.
The point is that what matters is the ability to leverage technology for economic advantage. High rates of deployed technology are only proxies for what benefit those deployments are expected to bring.
That is not to say standards are unimportant.
Technology standards in computing and communications are said to provide benefits for enterprises by reducing cost, minimizing risk, increasing the range of suppliers and making possible standardized training for employees. Such standards historically have been crucial in the hardware realm, much more than in the applications arenas.
For consumers, standards are expected to produce the best goods and services, more value, lower cost and therefore wide availability.
Benefits might also accrue to particular suppliers when proprietary standards become consumer or enterprise commercial “standards,” as was true for IBM and become true for Microsoft and Apple, Cisco and others.
“Open” standards have also grown more important in the hardware and firmware spaces, as Linux, Android and Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol suggest.
The world of applications is much less dependent on international standards. In the internet era, Google, Facebook, WeChat, Amazon, Alibaba, Netflix and other solutions have not established themselves so much through standards as because consumers simply prefer to use them.
Broadly speaking, broad global standards reduce risk for infrastructure suppliers, as they create larger markets and create more niches for original equipment manufacturers.
What matters is productivity; the ability to wring value from investments. Industrial policy might help. Still, success will ultimately be determined by demand, not supply.
