From: ce11son@yahoo.ca

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:26:48 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
 wrote:

>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.
>
Is compulsory motor insurance "socialism" ? Both deal with
circumstances where the great majority of the those "insured" will be
involved in requiring the service at some time and in the end it costs
everybody less to have a more or less uniform method of charging.

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