If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Public Services and Private Companies
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
After reading the British Rail thread, I had a few thoughts on private companies that deliver public/essential services.
Would it be more beneficial if all essential services were publicly funded/owned? Has competition between private companies (where it exists) pushed prices down significantly, and, if so, have these lower prices been reflected in the service we're receiving?
To use BT as an example:
BT provides the essential service of the telephone network (yes so do other companies, but if you were to phone 999 BT is the interface between the control room and you), but is run for the benefit of the shareholders (not necessarily you and I).
Would the service be better if the government ran it?
Or does the competition from telewest and NTL, apart from causing price wars, cause BT to innovate/use more new technologies than it would if there was no-one to compete against?
Also, it being the sole supplier of ADSL (which other ISPs have to buy from BT), would internet privacy/security be at risk if it were government run?
The same thing goes for electrictity, water and gas.
Obviously your information security has nothing to do with them, but would you rather these public services were actually run by the public?
While competition can be argued as having driven prices down, does the need for profits to keep investors happy negate this? Not forgetting, of course, the need to pay some CEO a "substantial" salary + share options and other allowances.
Royal mail or whatever it's called now is an interesting idea, because there is no competition for delivering letters (that I know of, anyway) yet it is losing significant sums of money and threw away a substantial sum on a name change.
Surely where there is a single (i.e. no competition) service available, money need not be spent on advertising...as there is no alternative.
Sorry if this bores you, but I'm crap at this politics stuff, and have probably missed important bits.
Oh, and it's not a pop at BT...I just know more about telecomms than gas.
Would it be more beneficial if all essential services were publicly funded/owned? Has competition between private companies (where it exists) pushed prices down significantly, and, if so, have these lower prices been reflected in the service we're receiving?
To use BT as an example:
BT provides the essential service of the telephone network (yes so do other companies, but if you were to phone 999 BT is the interface between the control room and you), but is run for the benefit of the shareholders (not necessarily you and I).
Would the service be better if the government ran it?
Or does the competition from telewest and NTL, apart from causing price wars, cause BT to innovate/use more new technologies than it would if there was no-one to compete against?
Also, it being the sole supplier of ADSL (which other ISPs have to buy from BT), would internet privacy/security be at risk if it were government run?
The same thing goes for electrictity, water and gas.
Obviously your information security has nothing to do with them, but would you rather these public services were actually run by the public?
While competition can be argued as having driven prices down, does the need for profits to keep investors happy negate this? Not forgetting, of course, the need to pay some CEO a "substantial" salary + share options and other allowances.
Royal mail or whatever it's called now is an interesting idea, because there is no competition for delivering letters (that I know of, anyway) yet it is losing significant sums of money and threw away a substantial sum on a name change.
Surely where there is a single (i.e. no competition) service available, money need not be spent on advertising...as there is no alternative.
Sorry if this bores you, but I'm crap at this politics stuff, and have probably missed important bits.
Oh, and it's not a pop at BT...I just know more about telecomms than gas.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
i'm going to stick with what i know and mention the Intel vs. AMD processor war that's been raging solidly for god knows how long.
It's plain to see that as a result of adding competition into a previously monopolised market, the rate at which faster processors are being developed has been phenomenally increased.
However, it seems that design has been forsaken of late and that Intel is desperately trying to push the Gigahertz angle. i.e. a pentium 4 3Ghz is advertised as beeing much faster than an Athlon 3000 XP because the athlon only has a physical speed of 2.something GHz.
Owing to architectural reasons which are too boring to name here (unless anyone for some bizarre reason is interested) this is in fact not the case, and both processors are pretty well neck and neck.
The upshot of this is that both of these companies are essentially trying to shift as many processors as possible based on numbers rather than actual merit.
Phew! I don't know if anyone understood a word of that, but it felt good to write
This is a consumer market, though, not an essential services one.
There's always been competition in the (x86) processor market, well maybe not always, but from 386 machines onwards (that I know of).
Yep, both AMD and Intel are still working upon a archaic architecture. Which will soon get constrained by heat more than anything (which is great if you fancy bolting on a house sized heat-sink).
Hehe, can also get into the RISC/CISC debate there...but that's
not really politics
But would you expect any decent level of innovation in a monopolised publicly funded company?
Surely there would be a reasonably amount, if only to keep the UK in line (if not ahead) of other countries.
Yes a private company is run 'for shareholders' but it is not possible for a company, even a monopoly to neglect its customers to any considerable extent, especially given the regualtion regimes imposed.
I would also say that it is not clear that a 'public company' is run for the public. There are all sorts of issues with managerial incentives and central control on public companies activities that exist in private and in public corporations (principal-agent problems)
I wouldn't overegg the CEO issue either, whilst there pay is often outrageous it ca hardly be said that it substantially effects the finances of the company.
Why not have govt run companies that compete with private suppliers? Then we can see whi is best (sort of)
Interesting idea.
One of the things I was mainly interested in was whether or not companies that were previously government owned, had innovated more due to having to compete with other companies, or whether they would have done similar things whilst being a monopoly.
Not necessarily neglecting the customers, but not offering more "interesting services", because there was no pressure to do so.
Would a national telecomms company have rolled out ADSL if not forced to keep up by the other broadband suppliers?
Or would everyone be stuck with 56k and horrendously priced ISDN?
I'm sure the same can be applied to other areas of business, but I've more learning to do before I know a significant amount.
There is a possibility however that govt intervention could have pushed things forward to an even higher level as in S.Korea where the govt has pushed the telecoms and internet industries and has led to the most internet and computer orientated society on the world..........
Ill start with transport. Competition has, in some instances, driven prices down. The buses along Wilmslow Road in Manchester, for example, are operated by about five different companies- Stagecoach are the most expensive, with nice buses, then the other companies get cheaper the more teh buses smell of urine:p Though round here Go and Arriva compete, and they both charge EXACTLY the same price. Conveniently.
For telecoms, one thing amuses me. Since 192 was abolished to "provide competiton", BT's directory enquiries service rose in cost by 42% and was STILL competitive. Oh, and one thing: not all of the UK is maintained by BT lines- Hull has its own telecom company, completely randomly it seems.
Yes, my thoughts exactly.
I think we've got a couple in Southampton...FirstBus and Solent Blue Line...but they don't do the same routes and therefore, don't compete.
I've only used one bus around here, so far, and it seemed OK...and quite reasonably priced.
Yeah, Kingston Telecom for Hull.
It's interesting how the directory enquiries service rose in price, although I can't remember any of the numbers anyhow.
Railways, water companies, air traffic control, etc, are however monopolies that face very little if any competition whatsoever. Their customers cannot switch to rival companies and are forced to use their services.
There hasn't been a single benefit to users of these privatised basic services. Only increased costs and a disgraceful decline in service.
For as long as the Tories defend what they did- let alone talk of doing further privatisation- they don't deserve a single MP. That anyone at all in this country, let alone several millions, are still happy to vote for those corporate manslaughter bastards is beyond me.
And shame to Tony Blair and his broken promises to renationalise the railways.
If the Lib Dems wanted a real chance of winning a general election for the first time, they only need do one thing: to promise to renationalise the railways and water companies.
First Bradford are robbing bastards. They were dire when they were called Yorkshire Rider, and theyve got steadily worse.
I live in Wrose, with a population of about 8,000-10,000. We have two buses an hour, one an hour on evenings and weekends. A return ticket to Shipley (one mile away) costs £1.40.
Reasonable my arse :mad:
Buses were a hell of a lot better when the National Bus Company was still around.
I got a bus to Wyke, I think and it was about two pounds.
It cost about the same as I'd have paid in Southampton.
But I generally spend a fortune on petrol rather than buses, so I'm not so clued up on what a bus should cost.
Totton to Soton used to cost about a quid, for six miles of travel.
A good few years ago, though.
Edit: Yeah the cost of your 1 mile journey is insane.