Send message to Author

Short abstract:

5G is studied as a standardisation process and as deployment on field sites. Comparatively little attention is paid to what happens between standardisation and deployment, in the implementation phase. This is a missed opportunity to witness the materialisation of standards as infrastructures.

Long abstract:

5G is studied from the perspective of international standardisation process and the vantage point of deployment on field sites. Comparatively little attention is paid to what happens between standardisation and deployment: namely, in the implementation phase. This is a missed opportunity to witness the materialisation of standards and infrastructures, where defaults for deployment are decided, interfaces for integration are defined, and the range viable actors in the market segment is being determined. In this paper I present empirical evidence for infrastructural contestation, ideological struggle and the pursuit of technological sovereignty in the domain of 5G implementation.

Open implementations of 5G standards are a good entry point to study the problematic of implementation. The open development process is more accessible to critical empirical investigations than other single-vendor efforts. Multiple actors negotiate their respective positions similar to the standardisation process, but this time on the level of material configurations. Finally, open technologies are often framed as enablers of technological sovereignty in face of hegemonic technological regimes, in this case formulated as supply chain dependencies.

I contextualise code ethnographical observations within policy analysis and the critical political economy of telecommunications. Beyond mapping contestation, the ultimate goal is to identify pitfalls and possibilities for critical interventions from civil society with a view to advance the public interest in telecommunications. In line with this goal, I mobilise the concept of ideology — specifically infrastructural ideology — to rethink technological sovereignty as a dynamic concept where civil society, state and capital all have roles to play.