>>>> I don't know my history very well, but I'm guessing postal services 
>>>> existed long before electrical telecommunications. I'd guess that 
>>>> when it became the fashion, it seemed logical to task the postal 
>>>> system with implementing it...
>>>
>>> Only if your philosophy includes the concept of state monopolies.
>>
>> I don't know what a state monopoly is.
> Possibly not the right term. A monopoly that is granted by the state to 
> itself or to a fully state owned company.

I would have thought that for something like communications, or indeed 
any type of network, a monopoly is almost a design requirement.

If you had three different telephone companies, they'd invent three 
types of telephone, with three incompatible numbering plans, and three 
incompatible sorts of cabling with incompatible signalling protocols. 
They'd then go out and lay three sets of cabling, build three sets of 
telephone exchanges, and when everything was finished you'd *still* only 
be able to call people who are with the same provider as you.

Similar arguments go for things like power distribution, or rail 
networks. Anything that needs to work properly over a large area with 
multiple users. Otherwise you just end up with duplication and 
incompatibility.

Now, wether a monopoly needs to be "state owned" is another matter. 
Since I don't comprehend what this means, I can't comment.

Post a reply to this message