From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Charles Ellson  wrote:   
   >"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.   
      
   So in your view, nothing that has the characteristics of socialism   
   is socialism.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)