From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,52a0bacbcdd2da17 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-17 16:45:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!pd2nf1so.cg.shawcable.net!residential.shaw.ca!feed.cgocable.net!read1.cgocable.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3F367B39.8060108@noplace.com> <1060611604.45048@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F38DEBC.8040208@noplace.com> <3F3A33EE.90900@noplace.com> <3F3B89BE.1090207@noplace.com> <3F3CDA4A.7070505@noplace.com> <9Dy%a.3744$q9.203103@read1.cgocable.net> <3F3F8C38.2040801@noplace.com> Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment. X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:45:25 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.150.168.167 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cogeco.ca X-Trace: read1.cgocable.net 1061164255 24.150.168.167 (Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:50:55 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:50:55 EDT Organization: Cogeco Cable Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41663 Date: 2003-08-17T19:45:25-04:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:3F3F8C38.2040801@noplace.com... > Exactly 180deg backwards. The government *removed* its protection of the > monopoly and allowed others to compete. ATT did not have a monopoly > because they cornered the market. They had a monopoly because the > government *said* they did and forbid competitors from entering into the > business. I believe this oversimplifies what actually happened, although I'll admit I am short of hard facts. There was a shared infrastructure to be considered. Someone had to break the strangle-hold on that shared infrastructure that they had, IIRC. Another example (from Canada eh), was that our Bell Telephone at one time would not permit a competitor's phone to be pluged into a Bell line (you could only use a Bell supplied phone, and rented at that -- buying a phone came later). For competition on the telephone handset to occur, the courts had to declare that Bell had to permit other manufactured sets to be plugged into the line, provided that they met certain standard specs (IIRC, modems were beginning to bring this issue to the forefront as well). I believe something similar occured in the US. Of course Bell still threatened the customer (even today?) that if the telephone set causes a line problem, that you may get billed for the repairs of their line(s) to your home (of course this isn't the case if you have a Bell phone). So they strongly suggest that you should buy your telephone equipment from them. > Remember, a monopoly is against the law and the only way ATT could have > what they did have was with the permission, regulation and protection of > the government. > > MDC IIRC, they had a monopoly in the sense that the circuits all/mostly belonged to them. Something had to happen to decentralize the ownership/responsibility there. In that sense, I maintain the monopoly was _then_ broken. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg