From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 22-Apr-15 11:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 22-Apr-15 09:16, John Levine wrote:   
      
   >>>>Quite right.  [GSM] 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. ...   
      
   >It's a de facto world standard, with 85% of the market and used in 212   
   >countries.  That it wasn't developed by ISO and made a de jure world   
   >standard is moot.   
      
   It's a standard. Certain places in the world adapted it. That's all   
   you can say about standards, that they are standards where implemented   
   and ignored where not.   
      
   >>>GSM isn't particularly clever; the point was that everyone (except   
   >>>the US) quickly standardized on GSM, so they got economy of scale,   
   >>>and for commercialization, that's usually more important than   
   >>>cleverness.   
      
   >>That's still ridiculous. The United States had the world's largest   
   >>market for cellular service at the time,   
      
   >No, it didn't.   
      
   Yes, it did. Cellular wasn't affordable without a business purpose. The   
   United States had a larger market for subscriber-pays airtime.   
      
   Please ignore how many European countries went with the calling party   
   pays cellular subscriber's airtime, because without the cost shift,   
   cellular wouldn't have the widespread penetration.   
      
   >NMT in Europe had a larger customer base than AMPS in the US, and the   
   >problems scaling up NMT to deal with customer density were what led to   
   >the development of GSM. . . .   
      
   Ok; still not an "economy of scale" issue, because that doesn't change   
   the customization required for network design and infrastructure. In   
   fact, you've just argued against your own position.   
      
   >>so don't give us your  "economy of scale" nonsense. In Europe, they   
   >>formed a consortium to avoid different standards in neighboring   
   >>countries,   
      
   >Europe already had a single standard with international roaming in 1981;   
   >the US hasn't achieved that even 30+ years later, even domestically,   
   >because we _still_ have competing standards.   
      
   I coulda sworn in 1981 we had just the one standard. So you're rejecting   
   the idea that Europe went with an international standard that benefited   
   them, without considering the rest of the world. It's not like they   
   organized the entire world not on US standard into their consortium.   
      
   You continue to confuse the concept of "international", which suggests   
   the participation of people in different countries, with "worldwide",   
   which suggests the participation of people in most countries that would   
   benefit around the world.   
      
   >>As GSM is an evolutionary change to TDSM,   
      
   >No, GSM is a completely different beast from D-AMPS (aka TDMA).   
      
   You and Levine argue about that; I was just repeating what he suggested.   
      
   >>In any event, your argument doesn't work because you have to pick   
   >>and choose your costs and ignore other costs. There are major   
   >>infrastructure costs of the cell phone network that don't scale up,   
   >>like erection of towers and equipping them and connecting them to the   
   >>telephone network. Sure, individual parts benefit from mass   
   >>manufacture, but a whole lot is individually customized on a   
   >>per-location basis.   
      
   >Some parts benefit more from economy of scale than others, yes, but that   
   >doesn't mean that it's irrelevant as a factor.   
      
   Nice backpedal. Irrelevancy isn't the issue. The issue is that you   
   exaggerated the benefit hugely.   
      
   >>The main cost is dividing and managing available spectrum.   
      
   >... which the FCC does in a remarkably inefficient and expensive way,   
   >further adding to the costs here.   
      
   Really missing the point.   
      
   >>>ETSI standards often get used elsewhere simply because the rest of   
   >>>the world (except the US) doesn't see the point in developing   
   >>>competing standards.  GSM, for instance, was deployed in Australia   
   >>>in 1993, not long after Europe's first GSM network went live in   
   >>>1991.   
      
   >> Oh, bullshit. It's whichever manufacturer reaches the market first.   
      
   >No, it isn't.  There are many examples of one vendor being first to   
   >market and getting stomped by later entrants, particularly if the later   
   >entrants join together to create an open standard and thus get better   
   >economy of scale.   
      
   Snarf. That just means they ganged up and got rid of a competitor and   
   got the gubmit to do some of their dirty work for them. It doesn't mean   
   "better".   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)