From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 01:49:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"   
    wrote:   
      
   >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.   
   >   
   A form of compulsory health insurance originally.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)