Cell Providers and privatization argument [split from Of boards and display thread]

[Hồng Thất Công]

 

[Silent-Hunter]

Oh my, I hope no one was hurt in that accident. Do you know where that is?

 

[Hồng Thất Công]

I think it was in New York near the Hudson River...

Now don't get derailed on an already derailed thread   Stay on the first derailment

 

[rygD]

Due to blunders on their part regarding bookkeeping and keeping track of our account information, and a recent water main break, we had a bill that was about 3 times our usual

And you honestly believe that this couldn't happen if it were privitized? If that's the case have I got some mind blowing stories for you.

I know very well that it can.  More in context of the real discussion, I have also had problems with cellular companies.  As I said, I was not asking that the government relenquish control of the water.  I prefer to handle my water myself, however this is not an option where I currently live.  I shared the water related issues to help explain why I feel as described in the last paragraph of that post.

thatgui, when I lived in a metropolitan area with very extensive public transportation services there was a bus company that did transportation for some of the schools and various other contracts.  I think they were private schools, but I don't know.  There were other companies in the area that did similar things with much smaller fleets.  This company had several locations where they housed buses, so I don't know the total number.  While I don't think they could single-handedly take over the public bus routes they could probably offer a competing service for commuters and transportation to/from sporting events.  These are obviously peak times when the additional option might help others.  The smaller bus companies could probably get some business in the smaller towns, but they would still probably need to rely on someone else to get customers all the way to where they are going.  It reminds me of UPS and other parcel services that compete with government run postal services, and sometimes hand off packages for home delivery.  Of course I don't see such companies getting into the train (above and below ground) game too easily, if at all.

Grench, I agree with what you are saying, somewhat.  I don't want to get into my feelings related to politics.  I don't think anything will change too quickly with such things unless more is expected of those who work on such services, and higher standards are enforced, or a politician gets elected to a position where they can apply pressure to fix the water.  I wonder why those in office now and in the past don't care more.  Maybe they don't get the same water the rest of us do.

 

[Letalis Sonus]

As far as I can tell, everything that was privatized in Germany within the last 30 years was working rather well before and went pretty much downhill afterwards - that includes our railroad infrastructure and postal service ( => DHL).

The few things that are still public simply work, not just financially: we actually have much stricter standards for supply water than for the bottled stuff that is being sold in stores. The water pipes are being properly maintained as well - that includes the sewage water system, which is being taken care of by the very same companies.

 

[elw3]

Once they start caring about money the quality goes downhill....

 

[ekianjo]

that includes our railroad infrastructure and postal service ( => DHL).

Lol how about telecommunications ? before you had a single operator with a monopoly making you pay phone communication per the minute, then when it was privatized do you really think the service went worse?  On the contrary, it became better and much cheaper than the public offering.

Every time I hear about "those good public services", I'd like to remind people of how great Russian public services were, or even East Germany back in the soviet era since it's not far from where you are. 

In Japan almost every service out there is privatized, private trains run very well and are on time and have excellent services. 

If the private industry is doing worse than what the public service used to do, then there are some twisted incentives in place in the equation, that's the only thing I can say. Because a monopoly always tend to do worse than when new actors are allowed to compete (look at Microsoft - how they became complacent as a monopoly and how that attitude is biting their ass now). 

PS: postal service, btw: of course it went worse, because postal service was never about making money, it was so inefficient it was constantly bleeding cash (there's no money to be made by having a post office in a village with 300 people). So yeah, when you start to have private actors taking over, of course they start to rationalize such things and remove the inefficiencies. People who live in far and remote/less dense places SHOULD have worse services. Or pay more to get the same thing as elsewhere. 

 

[WizardStan]

then when it was privatized do you really think the service went worse?

Here in Ontario, yes it did. Privitization led to a monopoly for Bell who basically took government subsidies and made record profits instead of filling out infrastructure. It's only been recently that other companies have even been able to enter into the market leading to a sudden shift. And while these smaller companies are building themselves up with low rates and unlimited bundles Bell is saying that it is absolutely impossible to do these things. The phone system was originally government run, the government built infrastructure out so that rural communities would be supported and then sold the whole thing to Bell. Bell then effectively abandoned the rural communities and started beefing up their city structures so they could charge more from a larger audience for no actual benefit.Remember, no one is making strict arguments against privitization, it's privitization in an unregulated field leading to a monopoly that is the problem. Take away the monopoly and introduce genuine choice or force mandates on these companies so they can't take unfair advantage of their position and the problem goes away.

 

[WizardStan]

postal service, btw: of course it went worse, because postal service was never about making money, it was so inefficient it was constantly bleeding cash

In both Canada and the US the postal service is government run and entirely self sufficient, neither USPS nor Canada Post are funded by tax dollars. They treat all shipments the same, a single stamp will send my letter next door or out to Buttfuck Nowhere, Alberta.Despite how efficiently they're actually run, at least the US government is constantly trying to introduce new legislation to cut into their profits. There's a lot of false propoganda about how much the postal service is costing taxpayers and how much better it would be if it were done away with completely. These are lies demonstratable by how UPS handles shipping to rural communities: again, entirely for profit company refuses to build out infrastructure so costs to remote communities are much higher than urban.

 

[WizardStan]

The Ontario liquor store, the LCBO, is government run, they have a literal monopoly on alcohol and it brings in $1.5 to $2 billion in revenue every year. Despite it being government run it is actually one of the most efficient businesses in the province, and despite it having a monopoly the prices are not entirely unreasonable: A bottle of vodka will keep you blackout drunk for weeks which is pretty good for $40.

Every so often someone tries to push legislation to privatize it, citing that the sudden $5 billion influx (one time) would be beneficial, and that the competition from the single company that would actually take over would somehow drive the already low prices down. This logic makes no sense and I'm glad it is rejected every year.

 

[ElPoco]

Lol how about telecommunications ? before you had a single operator with a monopoly making you pay phone communication per the minute, then when it was privatized do you really think the service went worse?  On the contrary, it became better and much cheaper than the public offering.

In France, it didn't get that much better until one operator came with the intent of lowering the price. Before that, it was just an oligopoly where companies agreed on the prices. Even when they were caught and had to pay huge fines they just changed their offers to make the price fixing harder to see.

To me, the problem isn't about private vs public companies. A badly run public company is worse than a well run private company, a public company with insufficient fundings won't be better off being replaced with a private company with the same insufficient public funding, and a public company that abuses public money isn't much better than private companies that will do the same.

The biggest problem our societies face with this is that we're using basic economics to value stuff. That's how you end up with an app that sends "Yo" being jugded worth more than the well-being of thousands of people, or than the environment.

 

[thatgui]

Lol how about telecommunications ? before you had a single operator with a monopoly making you pay phone communication per the minute, then when it was privatized do you really think the service went worse?  On the contrary, it became better and much cheaper than the public offering.

Jupp, now its great, ecept if you live in rural areas where its common to have an internet connection in the several hundred Kbit/s range, as no big telco provider wants to invest money in this.

In Japan almost every service out there is privatized, private trains run very well and are on time and have excellent services.

Is this also true for rural areas - (I maybe totally wrong o this) as far as I have heard that the process of urbanization is heftier in Japan, with some regions already tending to be "deserted"

People who live in far and remote/less dense places SHOULD have worse services. Or pay more to get the same thing as elsewhere.

Thats a fundamential difference in our point of view on "How the world should work": I don't think that this should be the case at all - in my opinion one of the key responsibilities a goverment has, is to equalize (as good as possible) the living conditions of it citizens.