From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:11:10 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"   
    wrote:   
      
   >Charles Ellson  wrote:   
   >>"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>>On 22-Apr-15 09:16, John Levine wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>>>It's just like the stupidity of our CDMA/TDMA/iDEN war while the   
   >>>>>>>world standardized on GSM.  Despite its flaws, GSM is far   
   >>>>>>>superior to all of the US-developed systems _and_ costs less due   
   >>>>>>>to economy of scale, which is why all US carriers are finally   
   >>>>>>>moving that way.   
   >   
   >>>>>>Oh, c'mon, GSM came later. And it was mostly Europe that decided to   
   >>>>>>use an international standards-making process because of the   
   >>>>>>relatively small countries; I don't recall any other part of the   
   >>>>>>world being involved.   
   >   
   >>>>>Quite right.  It was developed by ETSI, where E stands for European.   
   >   
   >>>>It was developed by CEPT and later transferred to ETSI.   
   >   
   >>>That would be the consortium of European post offices, not a world-wide   
   >>>standards-making process, so your earlier statement was wrong. Who else   
   >>>would have developed it? Under European socialism, the post office was   
   >>>put in charge of the telephone infrastructure.   
   >   
   >>In most cases long before socialism was a working (FSVO "working")   
   >>concept. Communications were generally kept within control of   
   >>government agencies from long ago, the most convenient department   
   >>tending to be the national Post Office which already dealt with   
   >>letters and later usually inherited telegraphs followed by telephones.   
   >>Describing the governments at the relevant times as "socialist" would   
   >>in most cases be a bit of a joke.   
   >   
   >Both telegraph and telephone began as utilities owned by shareholders;   
   >neither was begun by government.   
   >   
   This was in a European context ("Under European socialism" above).   
   Even if private, the operations would often be subject to a government   
   monopoly. In the UK, the GPO claimed a monopoly on telegraph services   
   and this was confirmed by statute in 1869, telephones being later   
   ruled to be included within telegraphs, the last non-municipal system   
   being taken over in 1912; none of this involved anything recognisable   
   as "socialism". A possibly unintended consequence was that failing   
   systems which would otherwise have closed down were taken over and   
   kept in use as part of the expanding national network.   
      
   >I'm using the term "socialism" correctly to refer to nationalization of   
   >public utilities, regardless of whether the governments at the time had   
   >other characteristics of socialism. In some cases they were dictatorships;   
   >in other cases, democracies often still under monarchy.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)