FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Privatisation successes
Privatisation successes
Jump to: Newest in thread
You may disagree and I haven't fully looked into it but having went to a state school and my daughters now going to academy trust school. I can say for certain that the school my daughters attend is at least 500% better than when it was run by the state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *llitnilMan
over a year ago
Shirehampton |
"Telecoms "
Yup. The GPO was a hide-bound organisation when it ran the phone system. You had to rent your handset from them, there were only 3 or 4 choices, and the services were way behind the rest of the world. Turning it into BT meant more choice, better services, and lower costs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Telecoms "
Yes I agree this has got much better.
I do wonder could it have been this way with a 50/50 partnership which at least retained some state ownership? After all it was the same people working in the company but poor management . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"You may disagree and I haven't fully looked into it but having went to a state school and my daughters now going to academy trust school. I can say for certain that the school my daughters attend is at least 500% better than when it was run by the state."
They are not privatised they are still state funded they just have more independence on curriculums and spending. They can also pay the teachers more, along with choosing their hours of operation.
I think the plan was for schools to operate in small mutual support groups. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You may disagree and I haven't fully looked into it but having went to a state school and my daughters now going to academy trust school. I can say for certain that the school my daughters attend is at least 500% better than when it was run by the state.
They are not privatised they are still state funded they just have more independence on curriculums and spending. They can also pay the teachers more, along with choosing their hours of operation.
I think the plan was for schools to operate in small mutual support groups. "
They are still state funded, correct.
They are mostly definitely privately run though.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hot OP Couple
over a year ago
North West |
"Telecoms "
Mmm
Well there is a question as to whether technology would have moved British Telecom on anyway. I mean the technological advances since 1982 have been immense.
That said, yes the systems are better but how do we measure the value that we are getting from the suppliers? For example, it’s correct to say that trains are far superior now than they were before privatisation but the cost of rail transport in real terms is far greater than it ought to be |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"You may disagree and I haven't fully looked into it but having went to a state school and my daughters now going to academy trust school. I can say for certain that the school my daughters attend is at least 500% better than when it was run by the state.
They are not privatised they are still state funded they just have more independence on curriculums and spending. They can also pay the teachers more, along with choosing their hours of operation.
I think the plan was for schools to operate in small mutual support groups.
They are still state funded, correct.
They are mostly definitely privately run though.
"
You have better knowledge than me  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You may disagree and I haven't fully looked into it but having went to a state school and my daughters now going to academy trust school. I can say for certain that the school my daughters attend is at least 500% better than when it was run by the state.
They are not privatised they are still state funded they just have more independence on curriculums and spending. They can also pay the teachers more, along with choosing their hours of operation.
I think the plan was for schools to operate in small mutual support groups.
They are still state funded, correct.
They are mostly definitely privately run though.
You have better knowledge than me "
I'm only gonna from first hand experience tbf. I don't have internal knowledge. Apart from having to deal with then at times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"You may disagree and I haven't fully looked into it but having went to a state school and my daughters now going to academy trust school. I can say for certain that the school my daughters attend is at least 500% better than when it was run by the state.
They are not privatised they are still state funded they just have more independence on curriculums and spending. They can also pay the teachers more, along with choosing their hours of operation.
I think the plan was for schools to operate in small mutual support groups.
They are still state funded, correct.
They are mostly definitely privately run though.
You have better knowledge than me
I'm only gonna from first hand experience tbf. I don't have internal knowledge. Apart from having to deal with then at times."
I wax a school Governor many years ago. Having seen how the government controlled schools spending and teaching methods it was crying out for reform. Too many children lost out through ridiculous failed experiments on teaching and chronic funding restrictions.
I hope the academies do work well.
Our children have been portly served by government for too long, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My spelling being a prime example 
I was going to ask if our children being portly served was a comment on the quality of school lunches  "
Having seen most of our daughter's peers waddling about I thought it was an apt description of the youth of today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Telecoms
Mmm
Well there is a question as to whether technology would have moved British Telecom on anyway. I mean the technological advances since 1982 have been immense.
That said, yes the systems are better but how do we measure the value that we are getting from the suppliers? For example, it’s correct to say that trains are far superior now than they were before privatisation but the cost of rail transport in real terms is far greater than it ought to be"
Privatisation works when it opens the door to competition, such as Telecoms, the open competition has given us choice and affordable mobile and internet packages. If telecoms was not privatised in the UK, I can only imagine we would not have choice and cost benefits as we do today.
What shouldn't be privatised in my opinion, is anything that can't introduce competition, that would and has given large business a monopoly on essential services, in short they are cartel of 1.
Picking up on Jackal's comment on 50/50 ownership: I don't think that is something that would work, but if we were to nationalise water or energy for example, I would suggest outsourcing the contact centres / customer care / billing to market leaders who know how to manage the face of the business which is crucial for the success of the service. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Telecoms
Mmm
Well there is a question as to whether technology would have moved British Telecom on anyway. I mean the technological advances since 1982 have been immense.
That said, yes the systems are better but how do we measure the value that we are getting from the suppliers? For example, it’s correct to say that trains are far superior now than they were before privatisation but the cost of rail transport in real terms is far greater than it ought to be
Privatisation works when it opens the door to competition, such as Telecoms, the open competition has given us choice and affordable mobile and internet packages. If telecoms was not privatised in the UK, I can only imagine we would not have choice and cost benefits as we do today.
What shouldn't be privatised in my opinion, is anything that can't introduce competition, that would and has given large business a monopoly on essential services, in short they are cartel of 1.
Picking up on Jackal's comment on 50/50 ownership: I don't think that is something that would work, but if we were to nationalise water or energy for example, I would suggest outsourcing the contact centres / customer care / billing to market leaders who know how to manage the face of the business which is crucial for the success of the service."
That’s an interesting approach and certainly worth looking at as it would keep the infrastructure and value along with the majority of profits with the state.
Is there a risk that because margin would be small for the retailers that sharp practice would develop or would prices be set and customers move on service levels alone?
I’m just firing questions as I think it’s worth exploring. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago
Paisley |
Public transport in Scotland is a joke. The trains are now in the hands of the Scottish Government after Abelio failed to deliver the service promised.
The de-regulation of the buses has now meant remote areas have little to no bus service. I have a terrible bus service.
The cost of gas and electric has shown why it should never have been privatised. People are in power poverty and prices are set to increase even more.
I can’t think of anything that was sold off that has benefitted the people except those that bought the shares. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Telecoms
Mmm
Well there is a question as to whether technology would have moved British Telecom on anyway. I mean the technological advances since 1982 have been immense.
That said, yes the systems are better but how do we measure the value that we are getting from the suppliers? For example, it’s correct to say that trains are far superior now than they were before privatisation but the cost of rail transport in real terms is far greater than it ought to be
Privatisation works when it opens the door to competition, such as Telecoms, the open competition has given us choice and affordable mobile and internet packages. If telecoms was not privatised in the UK, I can only imagine we would not have choice and cost benefits as we do today.
What shouldn't be privatised in my opinion, is anything that can't introduce competition, that would and has given large business a monopoly on essential services, in short they are cartel of 1.
Picking up on Jackal's comment on 50/50 ownership: I don't think that is something that would work, but if we were to nationalise water or energy for example, I would suggest outsourcing the contact centres / customer care / billing to market leaders who know how to manage the face of the business which is crucial for the success of the service."
Agree with the former points (simply not sure re customer services point, I don’t know!).
The idea that trains can be competitive is a nonsense. Only one train can be on a piece of track at a time. No competition.
You have no choice over water supplier. No competition.
Gas/Electric on the surface seems different but as it is an essential utility and not a luxury commodity, I think it should be a state asset as in fact should the raw materials themselves!
Telecoms is an interesting one because until relatively recently, BT still had almost a monopoly over the cables (landline and internet). So other providers had to use BT network. With mobile and now other providers laying cables, this has changed. And yes, for the better as there is competition. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Telecoms
Mmm
Well there is a question as to whether technology would have moved British Telecom on anyway. I mean the technological advances since 1982 have been immense.
That said, yes the systems are better but how do we measure the value that we are getting from the suppliers? For example, it’s correct to say that trains are far superior now than they were before privatisation but the cost of rail transport in real terms is far greater than it ought to be
Privatisation works when it opens the door to competition, such as Telecoms, the open competition has given us choice and affordable mobile and internet packages. If telecoms was not privatised in the UK, I can only imagine we would not have choice and cost benefits as we do today.
What shouldn't be privatised in my opinion, is anything that can't introduce competition, that would and has given large business a monopoly on essential services, in short they are cartel of 1.
Picking up on Jackal's comment on 50/50 ownership: I don't think that is something that would work, but if we were to nationalise water or energy for example, I would suggest outsourcing the contact centres / customer care / billing to market leaders who know how to manage the face of the business which is crucial for the success of the service.
That’s an interesting approach and certainly worth looking at as it would keep the infrastructure and value along with the majority of profits with the state.
Is there a risk that because margin would be small for the retailers that sharp practice would develop or would prices be set and customers move on service levels alone?
I’m just firing questions as I think it’s worth exploring. "
As you say, the infrastructure would stay with the state, this would keep the assets protected and remove the markups.
Bearing in mind we are only discussing essential services that have no replication, this is important because price of the service can be easily managed and set giving customers, i.e. us, 2 choices.
Would we be happy to continue paying the market rates and all money that is made above the operating costs being used to supplement / support other essential services such as the NHS or social care.
Or would we like to reduce the cost we pay for the service, obviously some extra cost would still need to be applied to support the operating costs and business development.
Either or would benefit people now or when in time of need.
In terms of the industry leaders being used to underpin the services such as customer care and billing. This cost exists today in the services we pay for, and could be managed so much better when the provider of services can manage a steady landscape which will remove the squeeze on costs which happens today as companies are doing everything they can to meet shareholder and market expectations. The benefit of this would be a managed service that is actually being managed as a service and not a bottom line, which can only be a win for the employees and customers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Telecoms
Mmm
Well there is a question as to whether technology would have moved British Telecom on anyway. I mean the technological advances since 1982 have been immense.
That said, yes the systems are better but how do we measure the value that we are getting from the suppliers? For example, it’s correct to say that trains are far superior now than they were before privatisation but the cost of rail transport in real terms is far greater than it ought to be
Privatisation works when it opens the door to competition, such as Telecoms, the open competition has given us choice and affordable mobile and internet packages. If telecoms was not privatised in the UK, I can only imagine we would not have choice and cost benefits as we do today.
What shouldn't be privatised in my opinion, is anything that can't introduce competition, that would and has given large business a monopoly on essential services, in short they are cartel of 1.
Picking up on Jackal's comment on 50/50 ownership: I don't think that is something that would work, but if we were to nationalise water or energy for example, I would suggest outsourcing the contact centres / customer care / billing to market leaders who know how to manage the face of the business which is crucial for the success of the service.
That’s an interesting approach and certainly worth looking at as it would keep the infrastructure and value along with the majority of profits with the state.
Is there a risk that because margin would be small for the retailers that sharp practice would develop or would prices be set and customers move on service levels alone?
I’m just firing questions as I think it’s worth exploring.
As you say, the infrastructure would stay with the state, this would keep the assets protected and remove the markups.
Bearing in mind we are only discussing essential services that have no replication, this is important because price of the service can be easily managed and set giving customers, i.e. us, 2 choices.
Would we be happy to continue paying the market rates and all money that is made above the operating costs being used to supplement / support other essential services such as the NHS or social care.
Or would we like to reduce the cost we pay for the service, obviously some extra cost would still need to be applied to support the operating costs and business development.
Either or would benefit people now or when in time of need.
In terms of the industry leaders being used to underpin the services such as customer care and billing. This cost exists today in the services we pay for, and could be managed so much better when the provider of services can manage a steady landscape which will remove the squeeze on costs which happens today as companies are doing everything they can to meet shareholder and market expectations. The benefit of this would be a managed service that is actually being managed as a service and not a bottom line, which can only be a win for the employees and customers."
It’s an interesting concept with competition in the market on service.
So think my only concern and I’m not sure this is fixable . When we move on to the core business how do we ensure they perform and are accountable for the wholesale service and how do we hold the management accountable?
Maybe targets set by a non profit ombudsman?
I really don’t know the answer to my question.
I’m reminded of the Yorkshire water CEO having his salary tripled on privatisation. When the chairman was asked why he had received such a rise he said we don’t want good staff poaching.
The reporter asked isn’t it strange how he wasn’t poached during the last ten years whilst on such a low salary!
I know I’ve posted that before but it sums up privatisation’s benefits for a select few. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Telecoms
Mmm
Well there is a question as to whether technology would have moved British Telecom on anyway. I mean the technological advances since 1982 have been immense.
That said, yes the systems are better but how do we measure the value that we are getting from the suppliers? For example, it’s correct to say that trains are far superior now than they were before privatisation but the cost of rail transport in real terms is far greater than it ought to be
Privatisation works when it opens the door to competition, such as Telecoms, the open competition has given us choice and affordable mobile and internet packages. If telecoms was not privatised in the UK, I can only imagine we would not have choice and cost benefits as we do today.
What shouldn't be privatised in my opinion, is anything that can't introduce competition, that would and has given large business a monopoly on essential services, in short they are cartel of 1.
Picking up on Jackal's comment on 50/50 ownership: I don't think that is something that would work, but if we were to nationalise water or energy for example, I would suggest outsourcing the contact centres / customer care / billing to market leaders who know how to manage the face of the business which is crucial for the success of the service.
That’s an interesting approach and certainly worth looking at as it would keep the infrastructure and value along with the majority of profits with the state.
Is there a risk that because margin would be small for the retailers that sharp practice would develop or would prices be set and customers move on service levels alone?
I’m just firing questions as I think it’s worth exploring.
As you say, the infrastructure would stay with the state, this would keep the assets protected and remove the markups.
Bearing in mind we are only discussing essential services that have no replication, this is important because price of the service can be easily managed and set giving customers, i.e. us, 2 choices.
Would we be happy to continue paying the market rates and all money that is made above the operating costs being used to supplement / support other essential services such as the NHS or social care.
Or would we like to reduce the cost we pay for the service, obviously some extra cost would still need to be applied to support the operating costs and business development.
Either or would benefit people now or when in time of need.
In terms of the industry leaders being used to underpin the services such as customer care and billing. This cost exists today in the services we pay for, and could be managed so much better when the provider of services can manage a steady landscape which will remove the squeeze on costs which happens today as companies are doing everything they can to meet shareholder and market expectations. The benefit of this would be a managed service that is actually being managed as a service and not a bottom line, which can only be a win for the employees and customers.
It’s an interesting concept with competition in the market on service.
So think my only concern and I’m not sure this is fixable . When we move on to the core business how do we ensure they perform and are accountable for the wholesale service and how do we hold the management accountable?
Maybe targets set by a non profit ombudsman?
I really don’t know the answer to my question.
I’m reminded of the Yorkshire water CEO having his salary tripled on privatisation. When the chairman was asked why he had received such a rise he said we don’t want good staff poaching.
The reporter asked isn’t it strange how he wasn’t poached during the last ten years whilst on such a low salary!
I know I’ve posted that before but it sums up privatisation’s benefits for a select few. "
KPI's would be measured by those managing the front end, the market leaders I mentioned.
Customer satisfaction scores, time to resolve, time to fix, complaints, availability and so on.
Measure the success of the service from the consumer point of view. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Telecoms
Mmm
Well there is a question as to whether technology would have moved British Telecom on anyway. I mean the technological advances since 1982 have been immense.
That said, yes the systems are better but how do we measure the value that we are getting from the suppliers? For example, it’s correct to say that trains are far superior now than they were before privatisation but the cost of rail transport in real terms is far greater than it ought to be
Privatisation works when it opens the door to competition, such as Telecoms, the open competition has given us choice and affordable mobile and internet packages. If telecoms was not privatised in the UK, I can only imagine we would not have choice and cost benefits as we do today.
What shouldn't be privatised in my opinion, is anything that can't introduce competition, that would and has given large business a monopoly on essential services, in short they are cartel of 1.
Picking up on Jackal's comment on 50/50 ownership: I don't think that is something that would work, but if we were to nationalise water or energy for example, I would suggest outsourcing the contact centres / customer care / billing to market leaders who know how to manage the face of the business which is crucial for the success of the service.
That’s an interesting approach and certainly worth looking at as it would keep the infrastructure and value along with the majority of profits with the state.
Is there a risk that because margin would be small for the retailers that sharp practice would develop or would prices be set and customers move on service levels alone?
I’m just firing questions as I think it’s worth exploring.
As you say, the infrastructure would stay with the state, this would keep the assets protected and remove the markups.
Bearing in mind we are only discussing essential services that have no replication, this is important because price of the service can be easily managed and set giving customers, i.e. us, 2 choices.
Would we be happy to continue paying the market rates and all money that is made above the operating costs being used to supplement / support other essential services such as the NHS or social care.
Or would we like to reduce the cost we pay for the service, obviously some extra cost would still need to be applied to support the operating costs and business development.
Either or would benefit people now or when in time of need.
In terms of the industry leaders being used to underpin the services such as customer care and billing. This cost exists today in the services we pay for, and could be managed so much better when the provider of services can manage a steady landscape which will remove the squeeze on costs which happens today as companies are doing everything they can to meet shareholder and market expectations. The benefit of this would be a managed service that is actually being managed as a service and not a bottom line, which can only be a win for the employees and customers.
It’s an interesting concept with competition in the market on service.
So think my only concern and I’m not sure this is fixable . When we move on to the core business how do we ensure they perform and are accountable for the wholesale service and how do we hold the management accountable?
Maybe targets set by a non profit ombudsman?
I really don’t know the answer to my question.
I’m reminded of the Yorkshire water CEO having his salary tripled on privatisation. When the chairman was asked why he had received such a rise he said we don’t want good staff poaching.
The reporter asked isn’t it strange how he wasn’t poached during the last ten years whilst on such a low salary!
I know I’ve posted that before but it sums up privatisation’s benefits for a select few.
KPI's would be measured by those managing the front end, the market leaders I mentioned.
Customer satisfaction scores, time to resolve, time to fix, complaints, availability and so on.
Measure the success of the service from the consumer point of view. "
Yes I agree with you but I’m not sure independent retailers would be strong enough to manage or influence the generating monster which runs in the background and stop it becoming a sloth of state control?
I do like what your saying though
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Has there been anything that has been privatised that now benefits ordinary people more than before it was privatised?
"
UK-wise, I can only think of the Telecom and Energy sectors. Their privatisation opened the door to competition, innovation, investment in infrastructure etc...
With benefit of hindsight, the complete Liberalisation of the Energy sector clearly turned out to be a double-edged sword.
Privatisation of transport has no real benefits. Each company runs its own area, therefore there's little motivation to perform, invest, innovate. Monopolising routes has given them every motivation for greed, holding customers hostage. On the other hand: SNCF, DB, SBB all are state-owned and offer better service, much cheaper prices and more reliable equipment.
The NHS was quite adequate, if not quite good, until 2011 when cuts started affecting it hard. Still, the solution is to invest more in it and not privatise it. We've all seen the nightmare that is American healthcare!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Has there been anything that has been privatised that now benefits ordinary people more than before it was privatised?
UK-wise, I can only think of the Telecom and Energy sectors. Their privatisation opened the door to competition, innovation, investment in infrastructure etc...
With benefit of hindsight, the complete Liberalisation of the Energy sector clearly turned out to be a double-edged sword.
Privatisation of transport has no real benefits. Each company runs its own area, therefore there's little motivation to perform, invest, innovate. Monopolising routes has given them every motivation for greed, holding customers hostage. On the other hand: SNCF, DB, SBB all are state-owned and offer better service, much cheaper prices and more reliable equipment.
The NHS was quite adequate, if not quite good, until 2011 when cuts started affecting it hard. Still, the solution is to invest more in it and not privatise it. We've all seen the nightmare that is American healthcare!
"
The NHS is and always has been partly privatised, GPs, dentists, pharmacists and opticians are all private business giving care to NHS patients. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Has there been anything that has been privatised that now benefits ordinary people more than before it was privatised?
UK-wise, I can only think of the Telecom and Energy sectors. Their privatisation opened the door to competition, innovation, investment in infrastructure etc...
With benefit of hindsight, the complete Liberalisation of the Energy sector clearly turned out to be a double-edged sword.
Privatisation of transport has no real benefits. Each company runs its own area, therefore there's little motivation to perform, invest, innovate. Monopolising routes has given them every motivation for greed, holding customers hostage. On the other hand: SNCF, DB, SBB all are state-owned and offer better service, much cheaper prices and more reliable equipment.
The NHS was quite adequate, if not quite good, until 2011 when cuts started affecting it hard. Still, the solution is to invest more in it and not privatise it. We've all seen the nightmare that is American healthcare!
The NHS is and always has been partly privatised, GPs, dentists, pharmacists and opticians are all private business giving care to NHS patients."
But all still funded/paid for by by the state - through taxes and NI contributions. Take that away, take the regulations and state oversight, you're left with insurance companies, private-owned corps and big pharma running amok. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Telecoms
Yes I agree this has got much better.
I do wonder could it have been this way with a 50/50 partnership which at least retained some state ownership? After all it was the same people working in the company but poor management . "
Sounds like a ideL model for the NHS improvement.! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Telecoms "
Disagree.
Poor management and lack of vision meant the state owned industry was awful.
However, it should be state owned and run with a universal service obligation of at least gigabit synchronous connection to every property in the UK.
It is madness that some areas have a choice of operators (each of whom have dug up the road to lay cables) and some areas have no fast connection at all.
Same with mobile phones. Why have 3 main networks with their own masts when one state owned one would be more efficient?
All the essentials of modern life should be state owned for the people. Electricity, gas, water, sewerage, transport and telecommunications as a minimum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Telecoms
Disagree.
Poor management and lack of vision meant the state owned industry was awful.
However, it should be state owned and run with a universal service obligation of at least gigabit synchronous connection to every property in the UK.
It is madness that some areas have a choice of operators (each of whom have dug up the road to lay cables) and some areas have no fast connection at all.
Same with mobile phones. Why have 3 main networks with their own masts when one state owned one would be more efficient?
All the essentials of modern life should be state owned for the people. Electricity, gas, water, sewerage, transport and telecommunications as a minimum."
You agree it was awful and poorly run yet still want state run so somebody living in
a field can get 1Gb broadband speeds they will never use
The rollout of faster speeds to rural areas has already begun, you can't moan that you have no choice in who provides that if you are going down the state owned route.... 
Same argument with the masts, you argue that some areas have choice and others not for broadband, you have plenty of choice in mobile connectivity, madness I know, but those same masts can also provide faster broadband speeds to those that are only serviced by one fixed line / fibre provider. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Telecoms
Disagree.
Poor management and lack of vision meant the state owned industry was awful.
However, it should be state owned and run with a universal service obligation of at least gigabit synchronous connection to every property in the UK.
It is madness that some areas have a choice of operators (each of whom have dug up the road to lay cables) and some areas have no fast connection at all.
Same with mobile phones. Why have 3 main networks with their own masts when one state owned one would be more efficient?
All the essentials of modern life should be state owned for the people. Electricity, gas, water, sewerage, transport and telecommunications as a minimum.
You agree it was awful and poorly run yet still want state run so somebody living in
a field can get 1Gb broadband speeds they will never use
The rollout of faster speeds to rural areas has already begun, you can't moan that you have no choice in who provides that if you are going down the state owned route....
Same argument with the masts, you argue that some areas have choice and others not for broadband, you have plenty of choice in mobile connectivity, madness I know, but those same masts can also provide faster broadband speeds to those that are only serviced by one fixed line / fibre provider."
But there are vast areas of the country without any decent mobile signal because the commercial companies concentrate on urban areas.
Fast landline and mobile connectivity should be ubiquitous. This is only achievable in a non commercial environment.
Selling radio spectrum to the operators, so we have to pay for it through our bills is another scandal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Telecoms
Disagree.
Poor management and lack of vision meant the state owned industry was awful.
However, it should be state owned and run with a universal service obligation of at least gigabit synchronous connection to every property in the UK.
It is madness that some areas have a choice of operators (each of whom have dug up the road to lay cables) and some areas have no fast connection at all.
Same with mobile phones. Why have 3 main networks with their own masts when one state owned one would be more efficient?
All the essentials of modern life should be state owned for the people. Electricity, gas, water, sewerage, transport and telecommunications as a minimum.
You agree it was awful and poorly run yet still want state run so somebody living in
a field can get 1Gb broadband speeds they will never use
The rollout of faster speeds to rural areas has already begun, you can't moan that you have no choice in who provides that if you are going down the state owned route....
Same argument with the masts, you argue that some areas have choice and others not for broadband, you have plenty of choice in mobile connectivity, madness I know, but those same masts can also provide faster broadband speeds to those that are only serviced by one fixed line / fibre provider.
But there are vast areas of the country without any decent mobile signal because the commercial companies concentrate on urban areas.
Fast landline and mobile connectivity should be ubiquitous. This is only achievable in a non commercial environment.
Selling radio spectrum to the operators, so we have to pay for it through our bills is another scandal."
WI agree with you on ubiquity of mobile signal and 4g/5g connectivity across the country. However, you can prioritise/synchronise rollout of fibre optic broadband to remote villages, or areas with sparse population. And that's the problem with nationalising the sector, because it would turn rollouts into a public service where resources would be poured, at the same time, in a village population of 1000 and town with 10,000 residents, regardless of recouping the investment cost. It's a waste of taxpayers' money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It’s the age old problem,
Privatisation Vs Nationalisation.
Both methods have their benefits and their problems.
Shame there can’t be a hybrid solution taking the best of both worlds.
One where people benefit with both well invested services and can make a few quid for supporting them.
I like profits, but not at the expense of a shit service. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *landAnnCouple
over a year ago
Inverness |
"Public transport in Scotland is a joke. The trains are now in the hands of the Scottish Government after Abelio failed to deliver the service promised.
The de-regulation of the buses has now meant remote areas have little to no bus service. I have a terrible bus service.
The cost of gas and electric has shown why it should never have been privatised. People are in power poverty and prices are set to increase even more.
I can’t think of anything that was sold off that has benefitted the people except those that bought the shares. "
---------
Fully agree, and have never understood why we insist on referring to it as Public Transport....
Is it not privately owned transport which the public are permitted and encouraged to use, heavily subsidised by the public purse, but where profits go to shareholders...?
Pre-deregulation is was not perfect by any means, but it was a 'service' and the public could largely rely on that service.
These days the buses may or may not turn up... it's a lottery... it can hardly be called a service if we can't rely on it.
----------- |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Public transport in Scotland is a joke. The trains are now in the hands of the Scottish Government after Abelio failed to deliver the service promised.
The de-regulation of the buses has now meant remote areas have little to no bus service. I have a terrible bus service.
The cost of gas and electric has shown why it should never have been privatised. People are in power poverty and prices are set to increase even more.
I can’t think of anything that was sold off that has benefitted the people except those that bought the shares.
---------
Fully agree, and have never understood why we insist on referring to it as Public Transport....
Is it not privately owned transport which the public are permitted and encouraged to use, heavily subsidised by the public purse, but where profits go to shareholders...?
Pre-deregulation is was not perfect by any means, but it was a 'service' and the public could largely rely on that service.
These days the buses may or may not turn up... it's a lottery... it can hardly be called a service if we can't rely on it.
-----------"
A decent service is all anyone wants. Privatisation could be better if there was a mandated percentage of profits being put back into maintaining and improving the service they were responsible for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Public transport in Scotland is a joke. The trains are now in the hands of the Scottish Government after Abelio failed to deliver the service promised.
The de-regulation of the buses has now meant remote areas have little to no bus service. I have a terrible bus service.
The cost of gas and electric has shown why it should never have been privatised. People are in power poverty and prices are set to increase even more.
I can’t think of anything that was sold off that has benefitted the people except those that bought the shares.
---------
Fully agree, and have never understood why we insist on referring to it as Public Transport....
Is it not privately owned transport which the public are permitted and encouraged to use, heavily subsidised by the public purse, but where profits go to shareholders...?
Pre-deregulation is was not perfect by any means, but it was a 'service' and the public could largely rely on that service.
These days the buses may or may not turn up... it's a lottery... it can hardly be called a service if we can't rely on it.
-----------
A decent service is all anyone wants. Privatisation could be better if there was a mandated percentage of profits being put back into maintaining and improving the service they were responsible for."
But that won’t happen, and profits should be ploughed back in to services to provide universal good service, no private company will do this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
