From: ahk@chinet.com

Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>On 23-Apr-15 11:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>>>On 22-Apr-15 11:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:

>>>>>[GSM] 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.

>That one country consistently ignores international standards and
>creates its own (often inferior) national standards does not negate the
>former's existence.

Your pronouncement ain't reality, Stephen.

>>>>>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.

>Repeated assertion does not make something true.

>>Cellular wasn't affordable without a business purpose.

>Yes, it was; I knew plenty of people who had cellular phones, even back
>in the 1980s, for personal use.

Plenty of lower middle class people, Stephen?

>High prices means you can't _address_ the entire market, but it doesn't
>change the size of the market itself, and the US market was smaller than
>the European market simply due to the population difference.

Do continue to ignore income differences.

>Yes, the Europeans went with a different billing model.

Yes, dude. If I want a luxury yacht that I can't afford, but I can force
you to pay my costs of operation and ownership, then I can afford it.

>That reduced the prices, which increased adoption, which improved
>economies of scale, which reduced the prices further, etc. in a virtuous
>cycle.

How odd, given that anyone dialing INTO a cell phone doesn't benefit.

It's beyond idiotic to exclaim that economy of scale is of any benefit
with significant cost shifting and cross subsidy involved.

I'm deleting the rest unread. Your arguments are getting worse and worse,
and you're really pissing me off.

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)