Anritsu HFE0104 Editorial

6 High Frequency Electronics

2004 – Uncertainty
Makes Most Predictions
Impossible

Gary Breed
Editorial Director

W

ill the return to a strong economy continue?
Will consumers continue to spend on new

technology? Will the government continue its
renewed spending with little concern for deficits? Will
we still be in Iraq in 2005? Is there life on Mars?

Who knows? I have desires, opinions and rough
ideas on these matters, but that’s all. Too many matters
are in flux to do anything but make a wild guess.

Fortunately, there are a few easy predictions. The

economy will continue to operate reliably, whether it gets better, worse or
stays about the same. As long as Alan Greenspan is running the Fed, and
as long as inflation stays away, we’re likely to have low interest rates for
the rest of the year. Products will continue to be designed and manufac­tured by our readers and their companies.

Some of the other predictable things in 2004 include activities and
events. Trade shows and technical conferences will continue to be an
essential part of the interaction among engineers, and between vendors
and their customers. We will have our biggest participation in the Wireless
System Design Conference, the IEEE MTT-S International Microwave
Symposium and European Microwave Week. But, you may find some of the
High Frequency Electronics staff at the WCA Broadband Symposium, the
CTIA Wireless 2004 show, the NAB Convention and Exhibition, and some
of the excellent conferences that take place throughout the year.

And there’s one more: High Frequency Electronics will continue to
deliver timely and diverse technical articles and other essential informa­tion for engineers whose work requires them to increase their expertise
and knowledge. We will keep covering the principles unique to high fre­quency product design, the tools and equipment to accomplish those
designs, and the components that go into them.

We have survived the toughest economic conditions of the past 25
years. Since we’re still here and enjoying what we do, it does not take a
crystal ball to predict that we’ll continue.

A prediction I hope comes true is that all of you have a prosperous
2004! May your personal careers get a boost; your companies succeed (and
the value of your stock options soar); and may every commercial, military
and consumer product you make be a hit in the marketplace!

EDITORIAL

Editorial Director

Gary Breed

[e-mail]

Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Publisher

Scott Spencer

[e-mail]

Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Associate Publisher

Tim Burkhard

[e-mail]

Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Production

Assistance

Ken Crocker

Business office

High Frequency Electronics
7 Colby Court, Suite 4-436

Bedford, NH 03110

Editorial and Production office

High Frequency Electronics

6666 Odana Road, #508

Madison,WI 53719

Also Published Online at

www.highfrequencyelectronics.com

Subscriptions

Subscribe online at:

www.highfrequencyelectronics.com

or by mail to the

Business Office address above

E-mail inquiries to: circulation@

highfrequencyelectronics.com

Advertising information on page 71

High Frequency Electronics,

Vol. 3 No. 1,
January 2004. Published ten times per year by
Summit Technical Media, LLC, 7 Colby Court,
Suite 4-436, Bedford, NH 03110. Subscriptions
are free to qualified technical and manage­ment personnel involved in the design, man­ufacture and distribution of electronic equip­ment and systems at high frequencies. Send
information requests by mail to the above
address, by telephone to 603-472-8261, by
fax to 603-471-0716, or by E-mail to
[e-mail]

All contents Copyright © 2004,

Summit Technical Media, LLC

Government, Committee or
Proprietary Standards?

This issue’s Technology Report
updates the status of a few stan­dards activities that are of interest
to our segment of the electronics
industry. One of the topics that
arises from time-to-time is the
value of committee-developed stan­dards like these—when do they
work best, when do they get in the
way, and when does a proprietary
specification have the advantage?

The argument for standards is
interoperability. The idea is that, if
component suppliers and equip­ment manufacturers understand
exactly how a system is supposed
to operate, all their products will
work together. The combination of
cooperation and competition is sup­posed to speed time-to-market, give
customers more choices and make
everybody happy.

Some standards are mandated

by regulatory bodies. The argument
for this is simple: efficiency. If there
is only one standard with no dis­cussion, a “shakeout” period is not
required. This was the normal pro­cedure from 1934 to the 1990s, cre­ating log-running standards such
as NTSC color television.

About the 1980s, growth in elec­tronic technology was proceeding
so fast that government regulators
could no longer keep up. In the U.S.
the FCC has almost entirely aban­doned mandated standards, and
government telecom agencies
worldwide have loosened their
tight control of technology. (I’m lim­iting this discussion to radiated
technologies that have treaty
agreements and laws requiring
their management.)

As noted first, some standards
are carefully crafted by industry
committees because they are
deemed so important that a stan-

dard is essential for that particular
market to develop. IEEE 802.11 is
a good example of the success of
this approach. The market took off
quickly as soon as “Wi-Fi” stan­dards were agreed upon.

The third method is a specifica­tion developed at a single company.
Of course, others may or may not
choose to jump on the bandwagon
and make it a de facto standard.
Bluetooth and Zigbee are two of
these types of specs that are in the
news today (MS-DOS is a perfect
example in the computer world).

Each of these methods comes in
and out of favor, yet despite argu­ments by their proponents, none is
the single best way to create a stan­dard. As measured by their mar­ketplace success and lasting
impact, each has created great suc­cesses and dismal failures.

From January 2004 High Frequency Electronics

Copyright © Summit Technical Media, LLC