Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Telecoms | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 13:28:33 12/03/04 Fri In reply to: David (Australia) 's message, "Gordon Brown" on 13:06:18 12/03/04 Fri Funny you should mention privatisation of the telecommunications industry, as today marks the 20th anniversary of the privatisation of BT (formerly the GPO). My God, has it really been that long? Now I do feel old. I was seven at the time, and I remember my father wondering if he should take the risk of buying shares! For the benefit of Owain (and Roberdin?), who were not even born, The GPO was an era where payphones never worked, getting cut off was a matter of course, and there was a waiting list for a phone. There was no internet, and certainly no broadband. Phones were enormous bakelite devices, usually in green, with enormous dials that would wear out your fingers, and take 30 seconds to dial a number. You also had the absurd restriction of having to remain within the cord-length diameter of the phone when making a call. One thing that I do regret about the privatisation of BT, is the gradual loss of our beloved red phone boxes. I hope others will join me in demanding their immediate reinstatement. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: GPO | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:38:50 12/03/04 Fri I must be showing my age but what was GPO? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: General Post Office... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:42:51 12/03/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: GPO | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:52:48 12/03/04 Fri If things in Britain were similar to what they were in Australia (which I suspect) GPO stands for General Post Office. Telecoms in Australia were originally handled by the Post Master General. If you walk around the streets there are still many manholes labled "PMG" or "Post Master General". Eventually the two were de-merged by the government some time ago forming Australia Post and Telecom Australia. Telecom Australia was renamed Telstra quite recently and the telecommunications sector experienced limited deregulation under Paul Keating, with more than one company being allowed (Optus [owned by cable and wireless]) and Vodafone also entred the market), under Howard the telecommunications sector has experienced further deregulation and we are now allowed to choose from several companies. Under Howard the Government has sold off 49.9% of its shares in Telstra and the process will be completed over the next three years. 20 years since privitisation in Britain......we really are a long way behind. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Problems with privatisation | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:42:50 12/03/04 Fri Providing decent communication to remote areas of Australia is not ever likely to be profitable, but it is essential for the integrity of the country. It is hard enough for a (partly) publicly-owned Telstra to subsidise remote-area services while remaining competitive in the lucrative markets, but it seems completely unlikely that a fully privatised Telstra will maintain decent remote-area services. Where does that leave us? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Rural Services | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:50:01 12/04/04 Sat The UK and US both operate a fully privitised telecommunications sector, if anything, I think their services in rural and regional areas are better than ours. There ways other public ownership to ensure decent services for all, as demonstarted in Britain. All public ownership does is promote inefficency and a lack of competition, which is indeed a detrement to services in rural and regional areas. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Neither the UK nor the US has areas as remote as the remote areas of Australia | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:41:53 12/04/04 Sat You can't simply apply the same model from far more densely populated countries. I'm not saying it can't work, but I have yet to see how a private company can run decent services in such isolated areas. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |