Ericsson’s Börje Ekholm and Nokia’s Pekka Lundmark, two competitors in the 5G field, usually do not sit together and reach a consensus. However, they have temporarily set aside their differences on the key issue of the European recession. In a discussion in Brussels, the two warned together that if changes are not made quickly, Europe will face disaster. Lundmark even bluntly said that Europe has “stepped into the morgue with one foot”.

Is this statement too alarmist? On the surface, the data is indeed not optimistic. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi released an important report last year stating that the GDP gap between the United States and the European Union has widened from 15% to 30% in the past 20 years. Meanwhile, American companies invest 60% more in research and development and have 50% higher capital expenditures than European companies.

Technology and its application readiness are obviously one of the factors, and it is evident that Europe has not been able to give birth to a group of large technology giants like the United States. But it may be a misunderstanding to believe that Europe’s main problem is insufficient connectivity or lagging far behind the United States in the deployment of critical telecommunications services.

For 5G, it does seem that Europe will deploy it after the United States, especially in the mid band spectrum that is crucial for high-speed services. Data shows that 5G only covers about 50% of the European population. But this estimate seems too low, Ericsson’s coverage rate is 80%, only ten percentage points less than North America. The real gap lies in mid-range coverage, with only 45% in Europe in November last year and 90% in North America.

However, the view of the world’s largest 5G supplier outside of China is that Europe’s lag in the mid frequency band is causing it to fall significantly behind the United States at present. Both inside and outside the telecommunications industry, there is widespread disappointment with 5G. Although there was a lot of discussion about 5G driven robot surgery and autonomous vehicle a few years ago, for most users, the latest mobile standard looks the same as its predecessor. There is currently no mass market application that can only run on 5G networks.

More important is the fiber optic connection of factories, offices and homes, where people consume most of the Internet content. There is no evidence to suggest that Europe lags behind the United States in this regard. In fact, data released by the FTTH European Commission in April last year showed that the full fiber coverage rate of the 39 EU countries (including 27 EU member states and other regional countries) was 70%, which even appeared on the European Commission’s website, a full 10 percentage points higher than the full fiber coverage rate of the United States.

The competition in the broadband market in Europe is also more intense than in some parts of the United States. Ericsson and Nokia (the latter being relatively quiet on this topic) complain about the excessive number of 5G operators in Europe. Although no one wants to see a monopoly or duopoly situation, establishing multiple 5G networks with the same functionality appears to be a waste of resources and a blow to investment returns, especially with dozens of mobile virtual network operators providing services on top of this infrastructure. However, the European Commission tends to oppose any merger that leaves a country with less than four mobile networks.

In this situation, implementing any cross-border changes or establishing new single market institutions is much more complex than simply relaxing regulations. However, despite ongoing discussions about adopting rules that are more favorable to investors, several consecutive EU governments have not made any changes. For example, last year the European Commission allowed Orange and M á s M ó vil to merge in Spain, while forcibly allowing another telecommunications company, Digi, to enter its mobile infrastructure market.

“Ekholm’s proposed solution sounds more complex. The Trump administration has a very clear agenda for deregulation in the United States, so the gap may widen further at this point,”he said in Brussels. We need to be more proactive in deregulation. “We need to form a single market that includes a capital market alliance. We need to reform competition policy until we start integrating around winners. I think this can be fixed, but we must act quickly because the rest of the world is not stagnant.”

Ironically, the agent of deregulation could be a larger EU, which is already a notorious producer of red tape. However, the rise of nationalism in the region means that people have little interest in a more federal European structure and relinquishing the autonomy of individual countries. In the telecommunications industry, the ideal scenario for Ekholm and Lundmark could be a single European market composed of three major network giants, with unified rules on spectrum, wholesale obligations, and other issues. But this will never happen naturally, it requires large-scale intervention from top to bottom.

Of course, criticizing regulatory agencies is a common practice among business leaders, and Europe is often criticized for its risk aversion and excessive caution in the new technology market. Europe is like an old man hesitating in the face of the unknown, while the United States is a young man embracing new technology. Lundmark summarized this point well: “Europe tends to first inquire about whether there is technology X, then what the risks are, how to avoid them, and whether regulation is needed when problems arise.” However, the approach in the United States is different, as they only regulate after discovering the risks have been realized.

Although these complaints may seem reasonable, artificial intelligence brings new dangers that previous technologies have never encountered before. A laissez faire attitude is good until things get worse. Even the smartest people in the world seem uncertain about what they have “released” (a strange term used by the UK government to describe its AI policy this week), and whether this will lead to so-called general artificial intelligence or even super intelligence. So, how can humans regulate something beyond the sum of all human intelligence on Earth?

Regardless of whether the rules should be relaxed or tightened, it is almost certain that Ekholm and Lundmark’s input this week will not cause any changes. A year ago, when CEOs of major telecommunications companies in Europe raised similar concerns, there was no change; Even though the same warning was issued many years ago, there has been no change. For a long time, Europe has been adept at debating problems rather than solving them. The most likely next step is still to convene another forum.