International observers taking a close look at voting patterns have been very busy this last month -  and not just in distant African states.

Those who follow the twists and turns of the international standards committees governed by the much-respected Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) will not have been surprised by the most recent round of voting for the mobile broadband specification code-named IEEE 802.20 as it nears its 5 (or maybe 6) year journey towards final approval.

The 802 family of standards is no stranger to controversy.   Some might even suggest that the word ‘family’ seems inappropriate given the barely hidden degree of dissension between its different branches; but that would unfairly criticise the vast majority of IEEE members.

Many participants in these Standards-creating bodies collaborate for the common good.  They have a long-term commitment to technological progress; often without reward other than the personal satisfaction of having crafted one of the many threads that will be woven into the fabric of history.  Who amongst us, for example, can now envisage a world without WiFi ?

At the other end of the participatory spectrum it is equally clear that the investment in time and intellect is fuelled by corporate self-interest.  The cost of involvement in Standards committees is, from this perspective, easily justified as pro-active defence – particularly when market incumbents are wary of innovations that they would rather classify as ‘un-called for’.   Their financial contributions fund much of the work; those who pay pipers feel they have a right to call the tunes.

The challenge for the IEEE 802 Executive Committee is to ensure a balance between the overt (and often also covert) interests of major players and the real innovators.  With commercial fortunes (and reputations) at risk it is not surprising that ‘Promoters of the Old’ and ‘Delayers of the New’ join forces against those intrepid but ‘disruptive’ souls who have inconveniently created an altogether better widget.

So what’s new?  After the disreputable vote-packing shenanigans of previous years the IEEE 802 management have done a very good job of cleaning up the process of Standards development.  The process demands that those who vote against approval of a Standard are required to explain in precise detail what it is that they cannot accept.  These issues are then reviewed.  Amendments are made to accommodate the disapprovers, if possible, and further rounds of voting are held to achieve consensus; or at least 75% approval.  If you really want to block progress it’s possible, with a little help from your friends, to spin this for years.  But now, for IEEE 802.20, that 75% hurdle has been cleared and the Standard moves on to formal ratification.

It was a close call.  At the last voting round the Disapprovers and Abstainers very nearly managed to kick 802.20 once again into the long grass.   But the new voting process now reveals not only the identities but also the corporate affiliations of the Disapprovers and the poverty of their objections.  Thinly disguised as process concerns, technical points, or editorial corrections to the text, the remaining naysayers are simply exposed as ideologically and commercially opposed to progress beyond their favoured fantasies.

[Cue, stage left: Shakespeare's shrewd observer of pleading over-played: 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks'.]

The question that springs most readily to mind is whether this is business as usual or a hint of desperation.  Of the final fourteen Disapprovers, thirteen have been playing away for another branch of the 802 family, and their (surely unconflicted) compatriots amongst the Abstainers were largely those who couldn’t quite find, or pretend to find, any further legitimate reasons for disapproval.

This may all, of course, be pure coincidence.  It may have absolutely nothing to do with uncertain market acceptance of the much heralded IEEE 802.16e Standard.  It probably doesn’t reflect any concern about recent reports of severe under-performance – below expectations in capacity, coverage and indoor penetration - for the mobile versions of WiMAX.

Maybe, in the cause of ensuring rigour in the making of new Standards (and perhaps a new-found enthusiasm for learning from past mistakes), the Final Thirteen, bereft of substantive reasoning, can still lay claim to the ideals of scientific endeavour and innovation.  Smiling through gritted teeth, no doubt, they’ll exude confidence and everlasting innocence.

As a spokesperson from the Department of the Blindingly Obvious remarked, “Hyper-practice makes hyper-perfect hyper-bolics.”

__________________________________