From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
     wrote:   
   >On Thursday, 23 April 2015 00:11:11 UTC+2, 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.   
   >>   
   >> 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 which case you are using the term entirely incorrectly.  It is the   
   >equivalent of suggesting that . . .   
      
   Oh, I'm not in the mood for any more of your bullshit analogies. We established   
   long long ago that 100% of your analogies suck.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)