Hacker News Reader

Comment by dilyevsky | Hacker News Reader

Vendors wrote those standards though, not the operators. They are complex because it’s a defensive moat against competition imho

View on HN

They are complex because, usually, they are a union of everything every vendor in the consortium has done and/or wants to do.

Looking at the overview of the architecture on the network side [1] tells the tale, I think.

My take is that telecom operators forcefully had to evolve from Morse and copper to IP and radio, hacking stuff left and right every step of the way.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Multimedia_Subsystem#Archit...

Long time ago i worked on WiMAX devices which was a competing standard for the term “4g” from ieee and while it was simpler it wasn’t a whole lot simpler and performance sucked, so there’s that

When GSM was created by the European telcos (at the time they were still monopolies) a lot of care went into making the different parts decoupled with defined standards between the different parts, so that they could pit vendors against each other to avoid getting locked into vendor silos. This contributes a lot to the standards bloat since every interface needs to be defined.

In contrast there were the Qualcomm CMDA standards which were all proprietary and in-house, which had some upsides, but in the end carriers preferred the open standard with vendor competition.

There's a book called "GSM and UMTS: The Creation of Global Mobile Communication" about the history which is really interesting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com