Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>>> 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.

  You are confusing standards with monopolies.

  Just because a common standard is enforced by the government (usually
for practical reasons and/or for fair competition issues) doesn't imply
any kind of monopoly. There can still be several independent companies
offering the same type of product or service, which compete with each
other.

  A state-imposed monopoly is when the state actually forbids any
companies providing a product or service except for one (which is usually
either owned or endorsed by the state). For example in Finland there are
several such monopolies, such as for the right to import and retail alcoholic
beverages, or the right for legal gambling (such as lottery, casino games
and slot machines).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message