 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Back when I used to watch TV, nobody had Internet access yet. To find out
>> if there was anything on, you switch the TV through all 6 channels and
>> see if you see anything good.
>
> Did you have to wait several minutes for the tubes to warm up? Turn on the
> TV five minutes before the hour or risk missing the opening minutes of the
> show?
When I was a child my computer had booted before the picture came on :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> When I was a child my computer had booted before the picture came on :-)
That's OK. My Samsung runs Linux inside, and my computer boots before the
picture comes on too. And the menus are responsive just about as quickly, too.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-5-2010 21:25, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 5/12/2010 7:57 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Yes, the GPO.
>>>
>>> pardon my ignorance, but what is a GPO?
>>
>> What, couldn't Google it? >;-)
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Post_Office
>
> I saw that, but I didn't think it had any relevance to the conversation.
> You mean to tell me the post office controls the phone system?
>
Who else? Here the company was called the PTT for "Post Telegraaf
Telefoon". Despite the different spelling, I think you can figure out
what those words mean. There were all for obvious reasons (i.e. obvious
outside the US) state monopolies that involved communications, so the
logical thing (id.) is to combine them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You mean to tell me the post office controls the phone
>> system?
>>
> Who else? Here the company was called the PTT for "Post Telegraaf
> Telefoon". Despite the different spelling, I think you can figure out
> what those words mean. There were all for obvious reasons (i.e. obvious
> outside the US) state monopolies that involved communications, so the
> logical thing (id.) is to combine them.
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...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-5-2010 11:38, Invisible wrote:
>>> You mean to tell me the post office controls the phone system?
>>>
>> Who else? Here the company was called the PTT for "Post Telegraaf
>> Telefoon". Despite the different spelling, I think you can figure out
>> what those words mean. There were all for obvious reasons (i.e.
>> obvious outside the US) state monopolies that involved communications,
>> so the logical thing (id.) is to combine them.
>
> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-5-2010 11:51, Invisible 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You are confusing standards with monopolies.
Right. My point was that if companies are just left to their own
devices, they will all invent and deploy incompatible technologies.
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.
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? Even if the format of a
postcode is standardised, you still need a single entity to assign them.
Also, networks usually require some kind of "capacity planning"
activity. If you let independent parties all do their own thing, you'll
end up with duplicated effort.
All of this is presumably why almost all services are monopolies.
(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...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
