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's a brilliant implementation of mediocre TDMA technology.
Putting the phone's identity in the SIM wasn't a new idea but they
made it work.
I have no idea why you would state it's superior. As it happens,
I'm a T-Mobile subscriber (using an AT&T cell phone), but sound
quality isn't all that brilliant and I lose coverage plenty of
times when indoors.
That has everything to do with frequencies. AT&T (GSM) and Verizon
(CDMA) are mostly at 800MHz, while T-Mo (GSM) and Sprint (CDMA) are
at 1900 MHz.
The 800 MHz carriers have much better coverage because 800
propagates better than 1900.
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.
I have no idea why you would state it's superior. As it happens, I'm a >T-Mobile subscriber (using an AT&T cell phone), but sound quality isn't
all that brilliant and I lose coverage plenty of times when indoors.
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.
It's a brilliant implementation of mediocre TDMA technology.
Putting the phone's identity in the SIM wasn't a new idea but they
made it work.
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.
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.
For cellular networks, that's not necessarily a good thing. Ideally,
you'd use 1800/1900 for small, urban cells and 800/900 for umbrella or
rural cells. But that's not how FCC spectrum auctions work.
That has everything to do with frequencies. AT&T (GSM) and Verizon
(CDMA) are mostly at 800MHz, while T-Mo (GSM) and Sprint (CDMA) are
at 1900 MHz.
All the carriers have space in both blocks in various places around the >country, due to the rather messy spectrum auction process and M&A
activity over the years.
The 800 MHz carriers have much better coverage because 800
propagates better than 1900.
For cellular networks, that's not necessarily a good thing. Ideally,
you'd use 1800/1900 for small, urban cells and 800/900 for umbrella or
rural cells. But that's not how FCC spectrum auctions work.
I have generally found the claim that "rest of the world exclusively
uses GSM" to be patently false. Everywhere in the rest of the world that
I have visited often which includes places in both Europe and Asia in >addition to GSM it is not at all difficult to find CDMA service.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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.
There were probably a
few exceptions, but I don't know what they would have been.
It's a brilliant implementation of mediocre TDMA technology.
Putting the phone's identity in the SIM wasn't a new idea but they
made it work.
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, so don't give us your
"economy of scale" nonsense. In Europe, they formed a consortium to
avoid different standards in neighboring countries, and in turn created
a large enough market for themselves, but golly, they could have benefitted >from the same "economy of scale" just by adopting an existing standard.
As GSM is an evolutionary change to TDSM, and not a revolutionary replacement, >what's wrong with that? Doesn't mean there was anything bad about TDSM
to begin with. Engineering is supposed to evolve and improve over time.
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.
The main cost is dividing and managing available spectrum.
It's like arguing that Henry Ford's commercially successful production line >manufacturing system demonstrated "economy of scale" in automobile >transportation, completely ignoring that acquisition of right of way
and road and highway and bridge building absolutely do not scale up.
That's what you're failing to address with PTC: It has huge costs,
probably the vast majority of its costs, that just don't scale up.
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. If it's >Nokia, they'd push for standards compatible with what they're already >manufacturing, or Motorola, with one of the standards they contributed to.
For cellular networks, that's not necessarily a good thing. Ideally,
you'd use 1800/1900 for small, urban cells and 800/900 for umbrella or >>rural cells. But that's not how FCC spectrum auctions work.
That's an interesting point.
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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 some cases they were dictatorships;
in other cases, democracies often still under monarchy.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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.
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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.
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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.
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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. ...
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,
so don't give us your "economy of scale" nonsense. In Europe, they
formed a consortium to avoid different standards in neighboring
countries,
As GSM is an evolutionary change to TDSM,
and not a revolutionary replacement,
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.
The main cost is dividing and managing available spectrum.
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.
I'm using the term "socialism" correctly to refer to nationalization
of public utilities, ...
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 22-Apr-15 11:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 22-Apr-15 17:11, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I'm using the term "socialism" correctly to refer to
nationalization of public utilities, ...
That is more correctly referred to as "state socialism" (or
"national socialism", prior to the Nazis appropriating that label
for what was really fascism). Plain "socialism" refers to the
_workers_ owning the means of production, not the state.
Dude. The workers themselves owning the means of production is one
form of social ownership, but it is not an exclusive form of social ownership.
Nationalization is another form.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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.
On Thursday, 23 April 2015 00:11:11 UTC+2, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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 . . .
On 22-Apr-15 11:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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.
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.
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. . . .
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.
As GSM is an evolutionary change to TDSM,
No, GSM is a completely different beast from D-AMPS (aka TDMA).
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.
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.
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.
On 22-Apr-15 17:11, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I'm using the term "socialism" correctly to refer to nationalization
of public utilities, ...
That is more correctly referred to as "state socialism" (or "national >socialism", prior to the Nazis appropriating that label for what was
really fascism). Plain "socialism" refers to the _workers_ owning the
means of production, not the state.
On 23-Apr-15 11:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 22-Apr-15 11:18, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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.
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.
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.
Yes, the Europeans went with a different billing model.
That reduced the prices, which increased adoption, which improved
economies of scale, which reduced the prices further, etc. in a virtuous >cycle.
On 23-Apr-15 12:44, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 22-Apr-15 17:11, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I'm using the term "socialism" correctly to refer to
nationalization of public utilities, ...
That is more correctly referred to as "state socialism" (or
"national socialism", prior to the Nazis appropriating that label
for what was really fascism). Plain "socialism" refers to the
_workers_ owning the means of production, not the state.
Dude. The workers themselves owning the means of production is one
form of social ownership, but it is not an exclusive form of social >>ownership.
Nationalization is another form.
Specifically, the form called "state socialism".
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.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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.
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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.
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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" ?
Your analogy sucks. There's no comparison between a requirement to have >liability insurance with single-payer health insurance. For one thing, >liability is to other people and perhaps that is society's business.
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.
That's simply absurd. No one else at all is involved in one's personal >medical choices,
or they shouldn't be except for socialized medicine.
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Is compulsory motor insurance "socialism" ?
Your analogy sucks. There's no comparison between a requirement
to have liability insurance with single-payer health insurance.
For one thing, liability is to other people and perhaps that is
society's business.
If you are ill beyond self-help you become a medical liability upon
others
...
An injured or ill person can receive life-saving care (but not full treatment) in a hospital emergency room without ability to pay, but
that's a condition of federal law for receiving payments through
socialized medicine or having received past grants for new facilities
or having a nonprofit tax status.
Otherwise just showing up at an emergency room shouldn't impose a
duty of care upon the hospital.
In a free society, why shouldn't that be a choice an adult can make
for himself, as the only person he would harm is himself?
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 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" ?
Your analogy sucks. There's no comparison between a requirement to have >>liability insurance with single-payer health insurance. For one thing, >>liability is to other people and perhaps that is society's business.
If you are ill beyond self-help you become a medical liability upon others
just as with having a car accident involving more than your own
vehicle you become a liability upon others.
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.
That's simply absurd. No one else at all is involved in one's personal >>medical choices,
You might not have the opportunity to make a choice so have you got
relevant instructions tattooed somewhere ?
or they shouldn't be except for socialized medicine.
You treat all your own ailments ? Good luck when the chainsaw slips.
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.
On 24-Apr-15 08:25, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Is compulsory motor insurance "socialism" ?
Your analogy sucks. There's no comparison between a requirement
to have liability insurance with single-payer health insurance.
For one thing, liability is to other people and perhaps that is >>>>society's business.
If you are ill beyond self-help you become a medical liability upon >>>others
...
An injured or ill person can receive life-saving care (but not full >>treatment) in a hospital emergency room without ability to pay, but
that's a condition of federal law for receiving payments through
socialized medicine or having received past grants for new facilities
or having a nonprofit tax status.
... which pretty much every hospital has received at some point, so in >practice it is a liability upon society.
Otherwise just showing up at an emergency room shouldn't impose a
duty of care upon the hospital.
IMHO, there is a moral obligation, even if not a legal one.
In a free society, why shouldn't that be a choice an adult can make
for himself, as the only person he would harm is himself?
Sometimes the adult can't afford the care they need, e.g. because they
are banned from buying insurance due to their immigration status, which
means there is no real choice available to them.
Maybe you'll choose to blame the adults for such,
which is debatable,
but should such adults' children die from treatable injuries or diseases
due to their parents' choices (or lack thereof)?
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
On 24-Apr-15 08:25, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote:
If you are ill beyond self-help you become a medical liability
upon others
... An injured or ill person can receive life-saving care (but
not full treatment) in a hospital emergency room without ability
to pay, but that's a condition of federal law for receiving
payments through socialized medicine or having received past
grants for new facilities or having a nonprofit tax status.
... which pretty much every hospital has received at some point, so
in practice it is a liability upon society.
That's a hell of a lot of cost shifting. Any medical provider
accepting Medicare must accept Medicaid. My state tends to be years
behind in paying providers. You're not acknowledging reality even
when the patient is receiving socialized medicine.
In a free society, why shouldn't that be a choice an adult can
make for himself, as the only person he would harm is himself?
Sometimes the adult can't afford the care they need, e.g. because
they are banned from buying insurance due to their immigration
status, which means there is no real choice available to them.
The immigrant is aware of that and chose to come here anyway,
probably from a country in which he might have lacked care anyway.
Maybe you'll choose to blame the adults for such,
I'm not blaming anyone but you, for setting up a straw man when you
lack an argument.
but should such adults' children die from treatable injuries or
diseases due to their parents' choices (or lack thereof)?
Golly! A straw man AND moving the goalposts! Classic Usenet stuff
there.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 911 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 132:40:07 |
| Calls: | 12,132 |
| Files: | 186,512 |
| Messages: | 2,230,434 |