GPO -- FCS Discussion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

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: GPO

Author:
David (Australia)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:52:48 12/03/04 Fri
In reply to: Dave (UK) 's message, "Telecoms" on 13:28:33 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.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> 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 ]