On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 21:48:00 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
wrote:

In article ,
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 02/01/2012 00:46, The Real Doctor wrote:

Anyway, phone services in
the UK are far, far better and far, far cheaper than when the Post
Office had a monopoly.

Much of that is down to changes in the technology; e.g. international
telephone calls are not cheaper due to a change in ownership.

Not /quite/ a monopoly.... one place had (and still has) a separate
provider of fern curls.

Do you mean Hurl ?

Nick

On Jan 3, 10:25*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:

Much of that is down to changes in the technology; e.g. international
telephone calls are not cheaper due to a change in ownership.

Actually, international telephone calls are a prime example of
something that really _is_ cheaper when state monopoly telecos are
broken up or otherwise lose their monopoly. In many casees, state
owned telcos take assorted measures to discourage or prohibit VoIP
international calls, because they regard international dialling as
either a luxury or a distress purchase, and therefore one they can use
to cross-subsidise into domestic services. Part of that obviously
relates to surveillance: the sort of countries that still have
nationalised monopoly telcos tend to have a pretty relaxed view on
privacy. But it's not as simple as that, and monopoly telcos squeal
that loss of their international business will impact on their their
domestic business, which clearly implies that there's a disparity in
margin.

The GPO/POT accounts are too opaque to figure out if this was
happening prior to privatisation in the UK, but elderly telecoms
policy people of my (and, I suspect, Roland's) acquaintance reckon it
was definitely the case that the nationalised telco over-recovered
costs on international calls and under-recovered them from domestic,
which was why they howled so loudly when the indirect international
carriers arrived.

ian

In message , at 22:25:24 on
Tue, 3 Jan 2012, Charles Ellson remarked:
Anyway, phone services in
the UK are far, far better and far, far cheaper than when the Post
Office had a monopoly.

Much of that is down to changes in the technology; e.g. international
telephone calls are not cheaper due to a change in ownership.

Most of the fall in costs has been due to competition, and facilitated
by new technology. Where there's no competition, the new technology is
still expensive.
--
Roland Perry

Am 03.01.2012 18:57, schrieb ian batten:
As Lenin already said: it is very difficult to find a honest opponent
in the debate.
He also said "Hang (hang without fail, so the people see) no fewer
than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers."

When and where?
Source?

Oh, and
"It is necessary — secretly and urgently to prepare the terror. And on
Tuesday we will decide whether it will be through SNK or otherwise."

When and where?
Source?


L.W.

Am 03.01.2012 19:07, schrieb Graham Nye:
On 03/01/2012 17:14, Lüko Willms wrote:

As Lenin already said: it is very difficult to find a honest opponent
in the debate.
Why? Did he have them all shot?

At least a funny joke.

No, that was at the time, when Lenin had to go into hiding for not
being murdered by the "democrats" and other friends of the ruling class.
1917.


L.W.

Am 03.01.2012 22:32, schrieb Arthur Figgis:
DB had "working" narrow-gauge steam in the former east until the lines
were sold off in the mid-2000s - perhaps a bit of a grey area how "real"
it was, but they were regular timetabled services with were normal
passengers as well as anoraks.

There are still some (narrow gauge) lines with regular steam
traction, but those lines are not owned by DB.

Mostly tourist lines, like the one on the Brocken, or at the Baltic
sea cost.


Cheers,
L.W.

Am 03.01.2012 18:56, schrieb Graham Nye:

Why would Recliner want to deny writing that?

I don't care for the motives, only for the facts: he did deny it.

It's an entirely reasonable thing to have written in its context,
which was discussion of a state-owned railway company.

I have the opposite opinion thinking that it is absolutely
ridiculous. As you might have noted.

It is you who has sought to move the goal posts by introducing discussion
of one-person owned businesses,

No, that was again this Mr. Recliner (or who ever) who claimed that
once there is only one owner of a company, that turns this company into
a monopoly which is to be fought.

presumably so you can wriggle out of
answering Recliner's question to you: "Do you think workers' rights are
better protected in North than in South Korea?"

Did he write that? I don't know, but this is obviously far off topic
from the issues we are discussing. Or do you have a problem with the
Thought Police working for the Ministry of Truth, so that you have to
prove to be a good fink denouncing all possible thought crimes?


L.W.

Am 03.01.2012 19:43, schrieb Graham Nye:
On 03/01/2012 13:16, Lüko Willms wrote:

isn't it ridiculous to claim that the nature of a company stops being
a "real commercial company" when the composition of her shareholders
changes?
No. If a company is owned by, say, a national government which runs the
company with some objective other than making a commercial return then
the "company stops being a "real commercial company"".

This is a new, and welcome turn of your stance. The correct phrase
ist "with some objective other than making a commercial return", i.e.
profit.

But this does not have anything to do with the ownership. It might
have to do with which class is holding state power.

Under capitalist rule, you will find that most state owned
enterprises are actually operated with the objective to make profit.

That is what makes a distinction, not the shareholder.

L.W.

Am 03.01.2012 22:39, schrieb Ross:
isn't it ridiculous to claim that the nature of a company stops being
a "real commercial company" when the composition of her shareholders
changes?
That's not an answer to the question, Lüko, and you know it.

Why do you resort to making personal attacks on people with whom you
disagree?

What do you tell somebody who claims, stamping his feet in the
ground, that the earth is flat and that the sun rotates around the earth?



L.W.

Am 03.01.2012 22:42, schrieb Arthur Figgis:
Do you also care about the color of the skin of the shareholdes, their
religion, their sexual orientation, their preferred sports?

The religious views of a shareholder in one UK-based transport group
attracted some public interest in the not too distant past.

Tell me more. I don't anything about this.


LW.