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: Problems with privatisation | |
Author: Ian (Australia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 23:42:50 12/03/04 Fri In reply to: David (Australia) 's message, "GPO" on 13:52:48 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? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |