From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Charles Ellson  wrote:   
   >"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 have no idea why not, then. Coulda sworn I've heard the government   
   single-payer system for health care referred to as "socialized medicine",   
   so what else could it be? It ain't capitalism.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)