|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Right. My point was that if companies are just left to their own
>> devices, they will all invent and deploy incompatible technologies.
>
> Not really. One network will be bigger, and others will make their stuff
> compatible so they can connect to the network. Or you build interface
> converters.
Or you have the network equivilent of "format wars" while the few
biggest networks try to out-grow each other and win the game...
> Wow, good thing the internet uses ethernet everywhere, and we never had
> these dial-up modems, ADSL, or cable modems to deal with.
Fortunately, somebody invented IP. Before that happened, it was crazy
out there...
>> For something like washing machines, the fact that one machine is
>> "incompatible" with another is largely irrelevant. For anything which
>> could be described as a "network", compatibility is usually a Big Deal.
>
> Which is exactly why the companies tend not to deploy incompatible
> technologies, once a sufficiently good technology has proven itself.
Really? How would company X know that company Y is using a given technology?
> The main reason the telephone networks in the USA were monopolies is
> they were analog, and you had to carefully design the routing so that
> long distance calls didn't go thru so many switches that you lost all
> quality.
Similar constraints probably apply to things like water or electricity
distribution.
>> The other problem is assigned numbers. Can you imagine if there were
>> three different postal services, each of which assigns completely
>> different postcodes to the same addresses?
>
> FedEx and UPS and GPS driving directions and such all use the postal
> address. Why wouldn't they? Why would UPS go to the trouble of making up
> their own sets of addresses?
Yeah, because the postal address already existed in the first place. If
the post office hadn't existed first...
>> Even if the format of a
>> postcode is standardised, you still need a single entity to assign them.
>
> Because ethernet MAC addresses and worldwide telephone numbers are all
> managed by the same entity.
?
>> (Still, I guess it's plausible that you could have a single entity in
>> charge of *planning* a service, and have the service actually
>> *performed* by several independant companies...)
>
> Hey, welcome to Bellcore. Have a nice visit.
Um... OK?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |