British Telecom
Paris
some faceless mates of theirs, and set up some sham watchdog to employ
their cousins as well.
(Now you can argue all you want about the state of the GPO system at
the time, but I'll just laugh.)
Then we allow BT to acrew obcene profits due to the fall in price
of technology and their total refusal to pass the benefits on to the
customers..
Now we sit back and let them defy the inefectual OFTEL and barefaced
lie on national television about why and how they are doing it.
On channel 4 news the other night some BT rep actually invoked the name
of DEMON as an ISP that are offering a flat rate service.
If you know anything about this, you'll know how laughable that is.
BT are a fucking disgrace. They represent everything that's bad about
privatisation (mind you at least they aren't killing us yet like some
of the other ones are).
I take comfort in the fact that it doesn't matter a toss, because NTL
will have their position within 5 years anyway.
Their falure to produce flat rate and ADSL should be seen by investors
as the beginning of the end. Do you think that NTL will fail to provide
cable modem access?
Sell your shares (and can you please all try to do it on the same
day... :)
And before anyone goes on about capitalism giveth, and taketh away...
NTL are only in this position now because the government forced BT To
stay out of the cable market (because I suppose it didn't think cable
so important at the time).
So once again I call for the capitalists to fall on their swords (which
they probably haven't paid any tax on) in the name of all that's holy.
--
Paris. Not the City.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Barton Whoops
>First they hand over the entire network (and acompanying market) to
>some faceless mates of theirs, and set up some sham watchdog to employ
>their cousins as well.
>(Now you can argue all you want about the state of the GPO system at
>the time, but I'll just laugh.)
>
>Then we allow BT to acrew obcene profits due to the fall in price
>of technology and their total refusal to pass the benefits on to the
>customers..
BT were [still are?] a bunch of luddites. They've deliberately delayed
introducing new products/services in the belief that it was the best
way to protect profits. Unless they adapt quickly they'll go the way
of the dinosaurs.
Gareth Jones
>BT are a fucking disgrace. They represent everything that's bad about
>privatisation (mind you at least they aren't killing us yet like some
>of the other ones are).
No, they represent everything that is unfinished about privatisation.
The reason we don't have good unmetered internet access at the moment
is that BT still have a monopoly when it comes to the local loop.
Until that is unbundled,
David J Rainey
> First they hand over the entire network (and acompanying market) to
> some faceless mates of theirs,
They sold it for tens of billions of pounds. Money straight into the
Treasury. British Telecom as was made an annual profit of 800M. until
quite recently, BT paid more than that in Tax each year. Who says you
can't eat your cake and have it!
> and set up some sham watchdog to employ
> their cousins as well.
How many judgements, as a %age, go against BT?
> (Now you can argue all you want about the state of the GPO system at
> the time, but I'll just laugh.)
Laughter in place of knowledge?
> Then we allow BT to acrew obcene profits due to the fall in price
> of technology and their total refusal to pass the benefits on to the
> customers..
In a report published in 1995, it was demonstrated that 65% of the
benefits of privatisation had been passed onto the consumer.
> Now we sit back and let them defy the inefectual OFTEL and barefaced
> lie on national television about why and how they are doing it.
What lie?
> If you know anything about this, you'll know how laughable that is.
laughter in place of knowledge again?
> BT are a fucking disgrace. They represent everything that's bad about
> privatisation (mind you at least they aren't killing us yet like some
> of the other ones are).
The same privatisation that took an annual subsidy of 200pounds per
taxpayer and turned it into a 100pound surplus?
Privatisation was one of the (sole?) outstanding successes of the
recent Conservative era. But I suppose ther are always a few flat
earthers.
> I take comfort in the fact that it doesn't matter a toss, because NTL
> will have their position within 5 years anyway.
85% domestic residential share? One of the top 6 international telecoms
groups?
> Their falure to produce flat rate and ADSL should be seen by investors
> as the beginning of the end. Do you think that NTL will fail to provide
> cable modem access?
Now here's a thing. If Cable (not just NTL) passes 50% of all UK
households, how come these struggling underdogs aren't fully exploiting
their unique sales proposition and offering cable modems to all and
sundry? I now live in an NTL area, via CWC & Bell Cablemedia, but they've
been very quiet on the subject, and won't even confirm when (if ever)
they will provide internet or even multi-channel TV to our apartment
block.
Why could that be?
> NTL are only in this position now because the government forced BT To
> stay out of the cable market
Erm, they were forced to stay out of the *broadcast* market, to give the
CC's an opportunity to recoup some of their investment in an independant
local loop. And then comes along the plan to unbundle the BT access
network. So much for all that investment.
> (because I suppose it didn't think cable
> so important at the time).
Erm, no. It did know cable was important, otherwise why ban BT from
Broadcast Services which would make it harded for the CC's to make their
money back.
regards
David
Big Daddy
Paris <odes...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o13im$24q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> First they hand over the entire network (and acompanying market) to
> their cousins as well.
> (Now you can argue all you want about the state of the GPO system at
> the time, but I'll just laugh.)
Why will you laugh at a 12 month waiting list, one model with a choice of 3
different colours, provided of course that you accepted a fixed connection
in a location were the engineer decided to install it ...and of course the
mandatory party line... all swept away within months of privatisation....
perhaps you could share the joke, because for the life of me I just don't
get it ... could it be something along the lines of Monty Pythons..."Yes but
apart from all that what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Marc Living
>So once again I call for the capitalists to fall on their swords (which
>they probably haven't paid any tax on) in the name of all that's holy.
Swords are more likely to be banned than taxed.
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall
would be to make Parliament utterly subservient
to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish
trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin
http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk
************************************************
Bob Sims
destroy the British Telecoms industry and hand it over to their
puppet masters in the Franco-German Axis.
Gent at Vodafone has made a very good start by passing a total
of 30BILLION pounds IN HARD CASH over to France, Germany
and Italy and is trying to run the company into the ground so that
he can give what is left of that to them also.
BT will follow under the guidance of the pig Vallance.
(hated by BT staff, incidentally)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paris <odes...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o13im$24q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> First they hand over the entire network (and acompanying market) to
> some faceless mates of theirs, and set up some sham watchdog to employ
> their cousins as well.
> (Now you can argue all you want about the state of the GPO system at
> the time, but I'll just laugh.)
>
> Then we allow BT to acrew obcene profits due to the fall in price
> of technology and their total refusal to pass the benefits on to the
> customers..
>
> Now we sit back and let them defy the inefectual OFTEL and barefaced
> lie on national television about why and how they are doing it.
> On channel 4 news the other night some BT rep actually invoked the name
> of DEMON as an ISP that are offering a flat rate service.
> If you know anything about this, you'll know how laughable that is.
>
> BT are a fucking disgrace. They represent everything that's bad about
> privatisation (mind you at least they aren't killing us yet like some
> of the other ones are).
>
> I take comfort in the fact that it doesn't matter a toss, because NTL
> will have their position within 5 years anyway.
>
> Their falure to produce flat rate and ADSL should be seen by investors
> as the beginning of the end. Do you think that NTL will fail to provide
> cable modem access?
>
> Sell your shares (and can you please all try to do it on the same
> day... :)
>
> And before anyone goes on about capitalism giveth, and taketh away...
>
> NTL are only in this position now because the government forced BT To
> stay out of the cable market (because I suppose it didn't think cable
> so important at the time).
>
> So once again I call for the capitalists to fall on their swords (which
> they probably haven't paid any tax on) in the name of all that's holy.
>
Simon
"David J Rainey" <david....@nopam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.140e3de6a...@news.btinternet.com...
> > some faceless mates of theirs,
>
> Treasury. British Telecom as was made an annual profit of 800M. until
> quite recently, BT paid more than that in Tax each year. Who says you
> can't eat your cake and have it!
>
> > their cousins as well.
>
Not enuogh
>
> > (Now you can argue all you want about the state of the GPO system at
> > the time, but I'll just laugh.)
>
> Laughter in place of knowledge?
Not improved enough
>
> > Then we allow BT to acrew obcene profits due to the fall in price
> > of technology and their total refusal to pass the benefits on to the
> > customers..
>
> In a report published in 1995, it was demonstrated that 65% of the
> benefits of privatisation had been passed onto the consumer.
I'd disagree with that but then I also don't think BT's profits are extreme
compared to captial invested.
>
> > Now we sit back and let them defy the inefectual OFTEL and barefaced
> > lie on national television about why and how they are doing it.
>
> What lie?
ADSL would be a starting point but I can keep going
snip
> > I take comfort in the fact that it doesn't matter a toss, because NTL
> > will have their position within 5 years anyway.
>
> 85% domestic residential share? One of the top 6 international telecoms
> groups?
more like 50% residential share now and there still one of the top 6
>
> > Their falure to produce flat rate and ADSL should be seen by investors
> > as the beginning of the end. Do you think that NTL will fail to provide
> > cable modem access?
>
> Now here's a thing. If Cable (not just NTL) passes 50% of all UK
> households, how come these struggling underdogs aren't fully exploiting
> their unique sales proposition and offering cable modems to all and
> sundry? I now live in an NTL area, via CWC & Bell Cablemedia, but they've
> been very quiet on the subject, and won't even confirm when (if ever)
> they will provide internet or even multi-channel TV to our apartment
> block.
>
> Why could that be?
Because they can't get a workable business plan while BT hold the monoploly
on the local loop.
>
> > NTL are only in this position now because the government forced BT To
> > stay out of the cable market
snip
> Erm, no. It did know cable was important, otherwise why ban BT from
> Broadcast Services which would make it harded for the CC's to make their
> money back.
Still think thats a gimmick market anyway. if BT were serious about it ADSL
would have been here years ago without the broadcast section.
Theres an awful lot wrong with BT at present (especially the amount of
money thay waste internally) but they are still better than almost all of
the rest. Kingston Telecom spring to mind as the only one that is better.
Why do you think C&W...Cable and Clueless
Energis.............................EneGits
etc etc
Simon
David J Rainey
Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk says...
> Not improved enough
Against some mythical gold standard where every one has 2Gb/s to the
home?
> > What lie?
>
> ADSL would be a starting point but I can keep going
> snip
What lie was told about ADSL?
> more like 50% residential share now
50% of homes are on cable?
> and there still one of the top 6
Not the last time I looked.
> Because they can't get a workable business plan while BT hold the monoploly
> on the local loop.
I'll have to repeat myself:
The cable companies already have their own local loop in competition with
BT's. Cable Companies have infrastructure and services passing 50% of UK
homes. Why do none of these companies offer a credible alternative?
> Still think thats a gimmick market anyway. if BT were serious about it ADSL
> would have been here years ago without the broadcast section.
The market was not mature and there was some doubt about how to proceed
in a regulatory climate that looked as if it might hand over the access
rights to a core asset to the competition. And, with the unbundling
decision coming out as it did, they would appear to have been proven
correct. Just as well, from a shareholders POV, that they didn't start
down the path of spending billions on installing fibre to every green cab
in the land, when the competition will gain access at "incremental cost
price".
Did you hear Vallance's speach to the TMA?
> Theres an awful lot wrong with BT at present
Compared with?
> but they are still better than almost all of
> the rest. Kingston Telecom spring to mind as the only one that is better.
We shall see how well Kingston scale.......
> Why do you think C&W...Cable and Clueless
Tsk, Cowboy and Witless. Or at least that was what I was told by a Kiwi
Contractor who worked at their Virginia offices......
> Energis.............................EneGits
Interesting, I'd always thought Energis had quite a good reputation, but
just a very limited product set. They used to do well in the TUA surveys,
in the days when I followed that kind of thing.
regards
David
David J Rainey
B...@bscserv.com says...
> BT is under the control of "EU" toadies whoes main aim is to
> destroy the British Telecoms industry and hand it over to their
> puppet masters in the Franco-German Axis.
No no no Bob. Bonfield is a secret agent working on behalf of the
Imperial Army of Nippon, or did you think the ICL/Fujitsu "experience"
was a coincidence. Tsk.
> Gent at Vodafone has made a very good start by passing a total
> of 30BILLION pounds IN HARD CASH over to France, Germany
> and Italy
What money did he give to France? Aren't they holding a "beauty contest"?
> and is trying to run the company into the ground so that
> he can give what is left of that to them also.
You mean after he built it up from a demerged offshoot from Racal into
the most valuable company in the UK?
> BT will follow under the guidance of the pig Vallance.
Who retired in all but name two years ago, and has almost no involvement
in the day to day running of the company, and who spent twn years
building it up from a laughing stock to a company respected round the
world.
regards
David
Paris
david....@nopam.btinternet.com (David J Rainey) wrote:
> In article <8o13im$24q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, odes...@my-deja.com says...
> They sold it for tens of billions of pounds. Money straight into the
> Treasury. British Telecom as was made an annual profit of 800M. until
> quite recently, BT paid more than that in Tax each year. Who says you
> can't eat your cake and have it!
I aren't arguing that private industry is more profitable than
national ones. We all know why.
The fact is that if the GPO had kept the system then they too would
have benefited from the fall in price of technology, and we would
have been passed the benefits by lower call costs or more employment
opportunity.
How much tax to BT Manage to dodge each year that they employees of a
nationalised BT would have paid in PAYE?
> How many judgements, as a %age, go against BT?
Not very many I suspect. Please furnish me with the figure....
> Laughter in place of knowledge?
:) Appeal to force instead of argument?
> In a report published in 1995, it was demonstrated that 65% of the
> benefits of privatisation had been passed onto the consumer.
In a report published this year, BT are judged to be providing a
globally competitive internet access, and complying fully with
unbundling process...
There are three types of lies: Lies, damn lies, and reports published
yesterday. I am roundly unimpressed.
> What lie?
That Demon internet are providing a flat rate access package, this was
said live on the news.
They aren't they are waiting for BT to roll out their flat rate fees
first.
If the BT man had been telling the truth he would have said that the
only people currently offering flat rate access are NTL, who thankfully
don't require the copper local loop.
> laughter in place of knowledge again?
Hmmm.
> The same privatisation that took an annual subsidy of 200pounds per
> taxpayer and turned it into a 100pound surplus?
Hey people the GPO are making a loss, shall we sell them?
Why are they making a loss?
Oh, I don't know. Shall we sell them?
But will service deteriorate?
No, we'll set up a watchdog, shall we sell them?
Will they become a monopoly?
No, Shall we sell them?
Will they make huge profits and refuse to pass them on to the public?
No, shall we sell them?
Will the go under in a few years taking all the money with them?
No, shall we sell them...
DUUUUH OK.
> Privatisation was one of the (sole?) outstanding successes of the
> recent Conservative era. But I suppose ther are always a few flat
> earthers.
That (dubious) success has been achieved at huge cost to the public.
A tiny number of people (most of whom are now living abroad for tax
purposes) have benefited from the effective asset stripping of what was
left of post war British socialist rebuild.
Thatcher and the mayfair set et al will be judged by history if it
isn't re-written by American Jews or there isn't a war or something.
Any fool can sell something that is worth £50 for £25 and cover it up
for a few years by sacking people and selling buildings until
eventually the whole lot gets shut down.
It takes a real fool to be suckered by it.
Thatcher should be hung as a traitor.
> 85% domestic residential share? One of the top 6 international
telecoms
> groups?
Which one of the two companies has the unlimited financial backing of
the largest company in the world?
> Now here's a thing. If Cable (not just NTL) passes 50% of all
> UK households, how come these struggling underdogs aren't fully
> exploiting their unique sales proposition and offering cable modems
> to all and sundry? I now live in an NTL area, via CWC & Bell
> Cablemedia, but they've been very quiet on the subject, and won't
> even confirm when (if ever) they will provide internet or even
> multi-channel TV to our apartment block.
>
> Why could that be?
NTL are ready to go now.
They are probably waiting until BT roll out ADSL, then they'll land the
final blow. This is how American companies operate.
With no control over the local loop, and cable modem beating ADSL in
price and speed, BT will finally keel over. All those who sailed in her
will happilly move to the caribean smiling all the way.
> Erm, they were forced to stay out of the *broadcast* market, to give
the
> CC's an opportunity to recoup some of their investment in an
independant
> local loop. And then comes along the plan to unbundle the BT access
> network. So much for all that investment.
Awwww. My heart bleeds...
> Erm, no. It did know cable was important, otherwise why ban BT from
> Broadcast Services which would make it harded for the CC's to
> make their money back.
As I said, because they didn't know they were making a mistake.
Not only are they thieves, they're incompetence thieves.
Once again, where we could have been the envy of the world, we are
reduced to being the laughing stock.
Paris
"Big Daddy" <bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Why will you laugh at a 12 month waiting list, one model with a
choice of 3
> different colours, provided of course that you accepted a fixed
connection
> in a location were the engineer decided to install it ...and of
course the
> mandatory party line... all swept away within months of
privatisation....
> perhaps you could share the joke, because for the life of me I just
don't
> get it ... could it be something along the lines of Monty
Pythons..."Yes but
> apart from all that what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Perhaps you might tell me what Frances' telecoms system was like at the
time?
Paris
Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
> Swords are more likely to be banned than taxed.
It's ok though, because if you've got enough money to own an estate
you can claim that you have a legitimate use for one and be
granted a license...
Big Daddy
> In article <Z6Xo5.4096$mE5.2...@news1.cableinet.net>,
> "Big Daddy" <bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Why will you laugh at a 12 month waiting list, one model with a
> choice of 3
> > different colours, provided of course that you accepted a fixed
> connection
> > in a location were the engineer decided to install it ...and of
> course the
> > mandatory party line... all swept away within months of
> privatisation....
> > perhaps you could share the joke, because for the life of me I just
> don't
> > get it ... could it be something along the lines of Monty
> Pythons..."Yes but
> > apart from all that what have the Romans ever done for us?"
>
> Perhaps you might tell me what Frances' telecoms system was like at the
> time?
I thought that we talking about the 'Arrogant Sate Monopoly' that was the
GPO.
But if it was anything like their pluming at that time....Shite?
Big Daddy
> In article <MPG.140e3de6a...@news.btinternet.com>,
> david....@nopam.btinternet.com (David J Rainey) wrote:
>
> > In article <8o13im$24q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, odes...@my-deja.com says...
>
> > They sold it for tens of billions of pounds. Money straight into the
> > Treasury. British Telecom as was made an annual profit of 800M. until
> > quite recently, BT paid more than that in Tax each year. Who says you
> > can't eat your cake and have it!
>
> I aren't arguing that private industry is more profitable than
> national ones. We all know why.
> The fact is that if the GPO had kept the system then they too would
> have benefited from the fall in price of technology, and we would
> have been passed the benefits by lower call costs or more employment
> opportunity.
Well all I can say is that the fall in "the price of technology" must have
coincided within weeks of privatisation, as the new Companies vowed to
eliminate party lines and waiting lists within months, and allow customers
to purchase 'plug' in phones outside of the GPO monopoly .... And they DID!
Paris
"Big Daddy" <bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I thought that we talking about the 'Arrogant Sate Monopoly'
> that was the GPO.
> But if it was anything like their pluming at that time....Shite?
Well, my answer would be, about the same as the GPO's system.
My point being that before it was privatised it was as good as anybody
elses system. Since privatisation it has declined to this point.
No ADSL whilst T1 connections are common in the states.
No flat rate, whilst they can't give it away in the states...
And so on..
Paul Hyett
view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>BT is under the control of "EU" toadies whoes main aim is to
>destroy the British Telecoms industry and hand it over to their
>puppet masters in the Franco-German Axis.
Is there ANYTHING you don't think is an EU plot? How about the weather?
:)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Big Daddy
> In article <kDbp5.464$NR3....@news1.cableinet.net>,
> "Big Daddy" <bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I thought that we talking about the 'Arrogant Sate Monopoly'
> > that was the GPO.
> > But if it was anything like their pluming at that time....Shite?
>
> Well, my answer would be, about the same as the GPO's system.
> My point being that before it was privatised it was as good as anybody
> elses system. Since privatisation it has declined to this point.
> No ADSL whilst T1 connections are common in the states.
> No flat rate, whilst they can't give it away in the states...
> And so on..
I am with Blueyonder (Telewest) Ł9.99 a month for unlimited surfing, 99%
first time log on ,connection speed always around 53K, a few teething
problems at first but for the last months now Purr..fect
The reason I have an almost pathological hatred of the GPO is that I had
just moved into a new house, I had a telephone at my previous address,
shortly after moving I learnt that my dad had terminal cancer so I needed to
be on call... would they move me up the mandatory six months waiting
list?... would they ****!
Even when they eventually condescended to install my phone I wound up
sharing a party line with the nosy old bat next door,
I also have family members who worked for the old nationalised GPO and have
therefore heard things at first hand,
I don't blame ex employees for being angry at privatisation.... after all
they had a cushy secure well paid job....and then they had to face up to
the real world! :o)
Simon
> In article <8o1pgu$mbl$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk says...
> > Not improved enough
>
> Against some mythical gold standard where every one has 2Gb/s to the
> home?
No compared to the cost of ISDN in germany or the availability of ADSL in
the USA or even kingston telecom in the UK
>
>
> > > What lie?
> >
> > ADSL would be a starting point but I can keep going
> > snip
>
> What lie was told about ADSL?
Available june 2000 (its not unless your a company) or how about surftime
coming in the spring 2000.
>
> > more like 50% residential share now
>
> 50% of homes are on cable?
Nope Bt have about a 50% share of the resedential market...lots of people
use BT lines (no other choice) but OLO for billing ie worldcom
>
> > and there still one of the top 6
>
> Not the last time I looked.
Were in March 2000 if its changed who replaced them
>
> > Because they can't get a workable business plan while BT hold the
monoploly
> > on the local loop.
>
> I'll have to repeat myself:
>
> The cable companies already have their own local loop in competition with
> BT's. Cable Companies have infrastructure and services passing 50% of UK
> homes. Why do none of these companies offer a credible alternative?
They do if you live in the right area (around 2012 were I am)
>
> > Still think thats a gimmick market anyway. if BT were serious about it
ADSL
> > would have been here years ago without the broadcast section.
>
> The market was not mature and there was some doubt about how to proceed
> in a regulatory climate that looked as if it might hand over the access
> rights to a core asset to the competition. And, with the unbundling
> decision coming out as it did, they would appear to have been proven
> correct. Just as well, from a shareholders POV, that they didn't start
> down the path of spending billions on installing fibre to every green cab
> in the land, when the competition will gain access at "incremental cost
> price".
Seem to have managed to roll it out quite well in the states years ahead of
us
>
> Did you hear Vallance's speach to the TMA?
Yes
>
> > Theres an awful lot wrong with BT at present
>
> Compared with?
What could have been done when they were privatised (also see 1 above) add
to that merely being the best of a bad bunch doesn't make them good.
>
> > but they are still better than almost all of
> > the rest. Kingston Telecom spring to mind as the only one that is
better.
>
> We shall see how well Kingston scale.......
Indeed...seem to be doing ok so far
>
> > Why do you think C&W...Cable and Clueless
>
> Tsk, Cowboy and Witless. Or at least that was what I was told by a Kiwi
> Contractor who worked at their Virginia offices......
LOL not heard that one in a long time
Simon
Simon
"Bob Sims" <B...@bscserv.com> wrote in message
news:967075462.8344.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> BT is under the control of "EU" toadies whoes main aim is to
> destroy the British Telecoms industry and hand it over to their
> puppet masters in the Franco-German Axis.
>
> Gent at Vodafone has made a very good start by passing a total
> of 30BILLION pounds IN HARD CASH over to France, Germany
> and Italy and is trying to run the company into the ground so that
> he can give what is left of that to them also.
That would be Vodafone Airtouch an american company would it or is ther e
another vodafone around?
Simon
Robin
<bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>Paris <odes...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8o3ion$ts9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <kDbp5.464$NR3....@news1.cableinet.net>,
>> "Big Daddy" <bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > I thought that we talking about the 'Arrogant Sate Monopoly'
>> > that was the GPO.
>> > But if it was anything like their pluming at that time....Shite?
>>
>> Well, my answer would be, about the same as the GPO's system.
>> My point being that before it was privatised it was as good as anybody
>> elses system. Since privatisation it has declined to this point.
>> No ADSL whilst T1 connections are common in the states.
>> No flat rate, whilst they can't give it away in the states...
>> And so on..
>
>I am with Blueyonder (Telewest) Ł9.99 a month for unlimited surfing, 99%
>first time log on ,connection speed always around 53K, a few teething
>problems at first but for the last months now Purr..fect
Is that at all times of the day and does that include the connection
charge of 4p?
>
>The reason I have an almost pathological hatred of the GPO is that I had
>just moved into a new house, I had a telephone at my previous address,
>shortly after moving I learnt that my dad had terminal cancer so I needed to
>be on call... would they move me up the mandatory six months waiting
>list?... would they ****!
>Even when they eventually condescended to install my phone I wound up
>sharing a party line with the nosy old bat next door,
>I also have family members who worked for the old nationalised GPO and have
>therefore heard things at first hand,
>I don't blame ex employees for being angry at privatisation.... after all
>they had a cushy secure well paid job....and then they had to face up to
>the real world! :o)
There was many things wrong with the old GPO but one thing they were
excellent about was technical training. Their apprentices *really* were
given first class training in electronics and telecommunications.
When BT made most of them redundant they had no trouble finding work
elsewhere.
--
Robin
David J Rainey
> I aren't arguing that private industry is more profitable than
> national ones. We all know why.
Yes, they are run on a commercial basis for the benefit of shareholders,
who maximise profits by providing a superior serivice.
> The fact is that if the GPO had kept the system then they too would
> have benefited from the fall in price of technology, and we would
> have been passed the benefits by lower call costs
How would they have benefitted from the new technology when they invested
a fraction of what other advanced economies were investing?
In the 1970's, The UK phone network received the equivalent of GBP 12 per
person per year in investment. The French and Germans got GBP 30 per
person, with the Americans spending GBP 50 per person on new, reliable
electronic switches. In the first ten years of privatisation, BT invested
almost GBP23 billion.
> or more employment
> opportunity.
Employment is a means to an end, and should never be an end in itself,
otherwise you end up with teams of people filling holes that have been
dug by another team.
> How much tax to BT Manage to dodge each year that they employees of a
> nationalised BT would have paid in PAYE?
Pardon?
> > How many judgements, as a %age, go against BT?
> Not very many I suspect. Please furnish me with the figure....
Oh no you don't. You are alleging that Oftel is a BT puppet, so you
should be able to provide some evidence for it, not recite a number of
judgements that were either FOR BT, or, more likely, judgements that
meant BT didn't have to pay to help competitors cherry pick the best
customers.
> :) Appeal to force instead of argument?
I'm seeing no knowledge here. Feel free to show some.
> > In a report published in 1995, it was demonstrated that 65% of the
> > benefits of privatisation had been passed onto the consumer.
> In a report published this year, BT are judged to be providing a
> globally competitive internet access, and complying fully with
> unbundling process...
Indeed.
> There are three types of lies: Lies, damn lies, and reports published
> yesterday. I am roundly unimpressed.
You mean reports you disagree with. Big deal.
> > What lie?
> That Demon internet are providing a flat rate access package, this was
> said live on the news.
> They aren't they are waiting for BT to roll out their flat rate fees
> first.
From the Press Release
http://www.bt.com/World/mediacentre/releases/2000/nr66.htm
"Using BT's Surftime, BT phone customers are able to dial any one of
around 30 ISPs, including Freeserve and from this month Demon, with
others joining all the time. We have over 200,000 registered Surftime
customers already, proving that unmetered Internet access is entirely
possible if you have a business model based in the real world.
So Demon doesn't quite have FRA NOW, but will very soon. But the biggest
ISP in the land DOES, as do 29+ others. And this is a barefaced lie is
it?
When I was a teenager, I read the Adrian Mole books and have always
remembered one particular entry in the diary:-
"My father complained about the cost of my new pyjamas, and said that
when he was my age, he slept in an old coal sack. I thought this sounded
dubious, so I called my Grandmother. She said that he slept in an old
FLOUR sack. So, I now know my father is a pathological liar"
I think you missed the point.
> If the BT man had been telling the truth he would have said that the
> only people currently offering flat rate access are NTL, who thankfully
> don't require the copper local loop.
The press release suggests otherwise.
> > The same privatisation that took an annual subsidy of 200pounds per
> > taxpayer and turned it into a 100pound surplus?
> Hey people the GPO are making a loss, shall we sell them?
1) British Telecom was seperated from the GPO way before privatisation.
2) British Telecom was profitable, to the tune of about 800M pa.
3) The combined nationalised industries cost every taxpayer 200pounds in
subsidies.
> But will service deteriorate?
> No, we'll set up a watchdog, shall we sell them?
And service has improved.
In 1984, fewer than 20% of customers had a PSTN
line installed in less than two weeks. In 1996, 97% of
all PSTN lines were installed to the customer agreed
date, with 89% within five working days. 95% of
faults are cleared within four hours for businesses,
and 80% within nine hours for residential.
> Will they become a monopoly?
> No, Shall we sell them?
Are you joking? They already WERE a monopoly, and a legally protected one
at that. The same act of parliament the set the ground for the
Privatisation of BT also allowed Barclays and C&W & BP (or it might have
been Shell) to form Mercury.
> Will they make huge profits and refuse to pass them on to the public?
> No, shall we sell them?
They will make huge profits because no one could comprehend how
inefficiently run they were as a division of the civil service.
Benefits will be largely passed onto the customer by competition and by
means of the RPI-X% formula. These, combined, effects reduced call costs
in the first ten years by 59%.
The public get a third of BT's profits by corporation tax. A third of
those profits are re-invested. A third are dispersed to Shareholders as
dividends, which pay for pensions and insurance schemes. Dividends to
individuals are taxed at between 23 and 40%.
> Will the go under in a few years taking all the money with them?
> No, shall we sell them...
Are you saying BT are going to go bankrupt?
> That (dubious) success has been achieved at huge cost to the public.
What huge cost?
> A tiny number of people (most of whom are now living abroad for tax
> purposes) have benefited from the effective asset stripping
This is complete rubbish. The shares were parcelled out in small
quantities to private investors, and the bulk were sold to pension firms.
If a tiny number of people, now living abroad for tax reasons, made a
killing, you should have no trouble in naming five! </Marc Living mode>
> Thatcher and the mayfair set et al will be judged by history if it
> isn't re-written by American Jews or there isn't a war or something.
Blimey, so the jews are to blame, or might be to blame in the future? I
think we are one step away from invoking godwins law. Go on, make my
day.....
> Any fool can sell something that is worth £50 for £25 and cover it up
> for a few years by sacking people and selling buildings until
> eventually the whole lot gets shut down.
How does this relate to BT?
(BT & NTL)
> Which one of the two companies has the unlimited financial backing of
> the largest company in the world?
I presume you are talking about Microsoft's $500M investment in them? So
what? There is no such thing as unlimited financial backing, and here MS
are investing in, among other things, a tame client to host Windows based
set-top boxes.
> > Why could that be?
> NTL are ready to go now.
> They are probably waiting until BT roll out ADSL, then they'll land the
> final blow. This is how American companies operate.
American Companies wait until their Unique Selling Proposition is no
longer unique before launching an assault? Really?
> With no control over the local loop, and cable modem beating ADSL in
> price and speed, BT will finally keel over.
Does any finance analyst share this rather outlandish view, or are you
getting a bit carried away?
> > Erm, they were forced to stay out of the *broadcast* market, to give
> the
> > CC's an opportunity to recoup some of their investment in an
> independant
> > local loop. And then comes along the plan to unbundle the BT access
> > network. So much for all that investment.
>
> Awwww. My heart bleeds...
Are you following this? It's the cable co's who've been ripped off, and
yes, I do feel sorry for them. They invested billions on building a
competitive alternative, then find that they anybody will have the same
facility by buying BT Copper at incremental cost. I'd be pissed off.
> > > NTL are only in this position now because the government forced BT To
> > > stay out of the cable market
> > > (because I suppose it didn't think cable
> > > so important at the time).
> > Erm, no. It did know cable was important, otherwise why ban BT from
> > Broadcast Services which would make it harded for the CC's to
> > make their money back.
> As I said, because they didn't know they were making a mistake.
> Not only are they thieves, they're incompetence thieves.
No. You are wrong. They did know it was important. And because they knew
it was important, they knew that it was sufficient inventive to get the
new cable entrants to build competitive networks. And to cement that
incentive, they removed competition for broadcast services for 9 years to
let them get on their feet. That was the theory, right or wrong. It
wasn't oversight or a mistake that meant BT was forbidden from offering
Broadcast Services. I don't know how much more plain I can make it.
> Once again, where we could have been the envy of the world, we are
> reduced to being the laughing stock.
Yes, such a laughing stock that no other country has tried to privatise
their national telephone company.
regards
David
Cliff Morrison
david....@nopam.btinternet.com (David J Rainey) wrote:
> From the Press Release
>
> http://www.bt.com/World/mediacentre/releases/2000/nr66.htm
>
> "Using BT's Surftime, BT phone customers are able to dial any one of
> around 30 ISPs, including Freeserve and from this month Demon, with
> others joining all the time. We have over 200,000 registered Surftime
> customers already, proving that unmetered Internet access is entirely
> possible if you have a business model based in the real world.
>
> So Demon doesn't quite have FRA NOW, but will very soon. But the biggest
> ISP in the land DOES, as do 29+ others. And this is a barefaced lie is
> it?
IMHO, it is deliberately misleading...
A few places in England have it now, but "Surftime" will not be available
for instance in Edinburgh till sometime in October.
And the ISPs signed up to it for the most part seem to be localised or minnows.
Big Daddy
Robin <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote in message
news:Yl2ZkQAP...@droom.demon.co.uk...
> In article <Nadp5.600$NR3....@news1.cableinet.net>, Big Daddy
> <bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
> >
> >Paris <odes...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:8o3ion$ts9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> In article <kDbp5.464$NR3....@news1.cableinet.net>,
> >> "Big Daddy" <bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I thought that we talking about the 'Arrogant Sate Monopoly'
> >> > that was the GPO.
> >> > But if it was anything like their pluming at that time....Shite?
> >>
> >> Well, my answer would be, about the same as the GPO's system.
> >> My point being that before it was privatised it was as good as anybody
> >> elses system. Since privatisation it has declined to this point.
> >> No ADSL whilst T1 connections are common in the states.
> >> No flat rate, whilst they can't give it away in the states...
> >> And so on..
> >
> >I am with Blueyonder (Telewest) Ł9.99 a month for unlimited surfing, 99%
> >first time log on ,connection speed always around 53K, a few teething
> >problems at first but for the last months now Purr..fect
>
> Is that at all times of the day and does that include the connection
> charge of 4p?
That's the *maximum fee* I pay for a First class (Microsoft based) Bluyonder
ISP, including unlimited 24 hour use of internet, and don't forget that most
of TWs network is new fibre optics :o)
> >
> >The reason I have an almost pathological hatred of the GPO is that I had
> >just moved into a new house, I had a telephone at my previous address,
> >shortly after moving I learnt that my dad had terminal cancer so I needed
to
> >be on call... would they move me up the mandatory six months waiting
> >list?... would they ****!
> >Even when they eventually condescended to install my phone I wound up
> >sharing a party line with the nosy old bat next door,
> >I also have family members who worked for the old nationalised GPO and
have
> >therefore heard things at first hand,
> >I don't blame ex employees for being angry at privatisation.... after all
> >they had a cushy secure well paid job....and then they had to face up to
> >the real world! :o)
>
> There was many things wrong with the old GPO but one thing they were
> excellent about was technical training. Their apprentices *really* were
> given first class training in electronics and telecommunications.
Technical competence not in question, but having worked within a
Nationalised monopoly, the Arrogance factor and strong trade unionism was
enough to make me realise that there must be better things I could be doing
with my life!:o(
Simon
> In article <8o1pgu$mbl$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk says...
> > Not improved enough
>
> Against some mythical gold standard where every one has 2Gb/s to the
> home?
>
>
> > > What lie?
> >
> > ADSL would be a starting point but I can keep going
> > snip
Try reading http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12846.html nice
explanation from ISPA about whats wrong with BT and some of there lies
Simon
JNugent
> david....@nopam.btinternet.com (David J Rainey) wrote:
> > From the Press Release
> > http://www.bt.com/World/mediacentre/releases/2000/nr66.htm
> > "Using BT's Surftime, BT phone customers are able to dial any one of
> > around 30 ISPs, including Freeserve and from this month Demon, with
> > others joining all the time. We have over 200,000 registered Surftime
> > customers already, proving that unmetered Internet access is entirely
> > possible if you have a business model based in the real world.
> > So Demon doesn't quite have FRA NOW, but will very soon. But the biggest
> > ISP in the land DOES, as do 29+ others. And this is a barefaced lie is
> > it?
> IMHO, it is deliberately misleading...
> A few places in England have it now, but "Surftime" will not be available
> for instance in Edinburgh till sometime in October.
> And the ISPs signed up to it for the most part seem to be localised or
minnows.
Freeserve is "localised"?
Freeserve is "a minnow"?
I pay £10 a month for unlimited (absolutely *no* further cost at all)
internet time...
Marc Living
>In article <lqk8qs4f8nqs9fdb6...@4ax.com>,
> Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>> Swords are more likely to be banned than taxed.
>It's ok though, because if you've got enough money to own an estate
>you can claim that you have a legitimate use for one and be
>granted a license...
Indeed. It would be like (very) old times.
(To digress, I am constantly amused whenever somebody who wishes to
"modernise Britain" and "discard feudal hang-overs" comes up with
proposals which themselves derive from feudalism and a feudal idea of
human relationships (ie, treating people as groups/classes/races
rather than individuals).)
Robin
eservespam.co.uk> writes
>Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote...
>
>> > http://www.bt.com/World/mediacentre/releases/2000/nr66.htm
>
>> > "Using BT's Surftime, BT phone customers are able to dial any one of
>> > around 30 ISPs, including Freeserve and from this month Demon, with
>> > others joining all the time. We have over 200,000 registered Surftime
>> > customers already, proving that unmetered Internet access is entirely
>> > possible if you have a business model based in the real world.
>
>> > So Demon doesn't quite have FRA NOW, but will very soon. But the biggest
>> > ISP in the land DOES, as do 29+ others. And this is a barefaced lie is
>> > it?
>
>> A few places in England have it now, but "Surftime" will not be available
>> for instance in Edinburgh till sometime in October.
>> And the ISPs signed up to it for the most part seem to be localised or
>minnows.
>
>Freeserve is "localised"?
>
>Freeserve is "a minnow"?
>
>I pay £10 a month for unlimited (absolutely *no* further cost at all)
>internet time...
>
>
account. My dilemma is I get a free line with my digital cable account.
I'm hoping ntl get a similar scheme together, after all *they* control
the local loop from my house to their switching centre, and, it's all in
fibre optics.
--
Robin
Robin
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:20:13 GMT, Paris <odes...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <lqk8qs4f8nqs9fdb6...@4ax.com>,
>> Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>
>>> Swords are more likely to be banned than taxed.
>
>>It's ok though, because if you've got enough money to own an estate
>>you can claim that you have a legitimate use for one and be
>>granted a license...
>
>Indeed. It would be like (very) old times.
>
>(To digress, I am constantly amused whenever somebody who wishes to
>"modernise Britain" and "discard feudal hang-overs" comes up with
>proposals which themselves derive from feudalism and a feudal idea of
>human relationships (ie, treating people as groups/classes/races
>rather than individuals).)
>
>
--
Robin
Marc Living
>In article <lqk8qs4f8nqs9fdb6...@4ax.com>,
> Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>> Swords are more likely to be banned than taxed.
>It's ok though, because if you've got enough money to own an estate
>you can claim that you have a legitimate use for one and be
>granted a license...
Indeed. It would be like (very) old times.
(To digress, I am constantly amused whenever somebody who wishes to
"modernise Britain" and "discard feudal hang-overs" comes up with
proposals which themselves derive from feudalism and a feudal idea of
human relationships (ie, treating people as groups/classes/races
rather than individuals).)
Cliff Morrison
> Freeserve is "localised"?
> Freeserve is "a minnow"?
I said "most", not all....
> I pay £10 a month for unlimited (absolutely *no* further cost at all)
> internet time...
As would I, 'cept I can't.
JNugent
news:cliffm-2708...@th-gt145-080.pool.dircon.co.uk...
> <JNu...@AC30.freeservespam.co.uk> wrote:
> > I pay £10 a month for unlimited (absolutely *no* further cost at all)
> > internet time...
> As would I, 'cept I can't.
Non-BT telephone line?
Cliff Morrison
<JNu...@AC30.freeservespam.co.uk> wrote:
No, that's BT -- but BT tell me the local exchanges need some sort of
line-switching electronics installed before the scheme can be available
here.
Hrmph... bloody typical, innit... you in England got the free surfing,
while in Scotland what did we get -- twicest as much "parliament"!
Marc Living
<Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>>(To digress, I am constantly amused whenever somebody who wishes to
>>"modernise Britain" and "discard feudal hang-overs" comes up with
>>proposals which themselves derive from feudalism and a feudal idea of
>>human relationships (ie, treating people as groups/classes/races
>>rather than individuals).)
>You'll have RH striking you off his list of supporters :)
Ah well. We soft southerners are very fickle ... everybody knows
that:-)
Simon
"Robin" <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote in message
> In article <8o8san$bah$3...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, JNugent <JNu...@AC30.fre
> eservespam.co.uk> writes
> >Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote...
> >
> >
> >> > http://www.bt.com/World/mediacentre/releases/2000/nr66.htm
> >
> >> > "Using BT's Surftime, BT phone customers are able to dial any one of
> >> > around 30 ISPs, including Freeserve and from this month Demon, with
> >> > others joining all the time. We have over 200,000 registered Surftime
> >> > customers already, proving that unmetered Internet access is entirely
> >> > possible if you have a business model based in the real world.
> >
> >> > So Demon doesn't quite have FRA NOW, but will very soon. But the
biggest
> >> > ISP in the land DOES, as do 29+ others. And this is a barefaced lie
is
> >> > it?
> >
> >> A few places in England have it now, but "Surftime" will not be
available
> >> for instance in Edinburgh till sometime in October.
> >> And the ISPs signed up to it for the most part seem to be localised or
> >minnows.
> >
> >
> >Freeserve is "a minnow"?
> >
> >internet time...
IIRC its also not part of surftime and is a seperate offer (I think its a
energis deal hence the dailing prefix)
Simon
Cliff Morrison
<Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> "Robin" <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote in message
> news:JPo9OPA7...@droom.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <8o8san$bah$3...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, JNugent <JNu...@AC30.fre
> > eservespam.co.uk> writes
> > >Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote...
> > >
> > >> david....@nopam.btinternet.com (David J Rainey) wrote:
> > >
> > >> > From the Press Release
> > >
> > >> > http://www.bt.com/World/mediacentre/releases/2000/nr66.htm
> > >
> > >> > "Using BT's Surftime, BT phone customers are able to dial any one of
> > >> > around 30 ISPs, including Freeserve and from this month Demon, with
> > >> > others joining all the time. We have over 200,000 registered Surftime
> > >> > customers already, proving that unmetered Internet access is entirely
> > >> > possible if you have a business model based in the real world.
> > >
> > >> > So Demon doesn't quite have FRA NOW, but will very soon. But the
> biggest
> > >> > ISP in the land DOES, as do 29+ others. And this is a barefaced lie
> is
> > >> > it?
> > >
> > >> IMHO, it is deliberately misleading...
> > >> A few places in England have it now, but "Surftime" will not be
> available
> > >> for instance in Edinburgh till sometime in October.
> > >> And the ISPs signed up to it for the most part seem to be localised or
> > >minnows.
> > >
> > >Freeserve is "localised"?
> > >
> > >Freeserve is "a minnow"?
> > >
> > >I pay £10 a month for unlimited (absolutely *no* further cost at all)
> > >internet time...
>
> IIRC its also not part of surftime and is a seperate offer (I think its a
> energis deal hence the dailing prefix)
That's the Freeserve one that's detailed on their own website you mean?
I couldn't get the actual sign-up page for that... no matter when it was I
tried, an error page always came up with a "subscriptions closed for
today" message.
Freeserve are also listed by BT as participants in Surftime though, so
maybe they do both.
Simon
> > IIRC its also not part of surftime and is a seperate offer (I think its
a
> > energis deal hence the dailing prefix)
>
> That's the Freeserve one that's detailed on their own website you mean?
> I couldn't get the actual sign-up page for that... no matter when it was I
> tried, an error page always came up with a "subscriptions closed for
> today" message.
> Freeserve are also listed by BT as participants in Surftime though, so
> maybe they do both.
There unlimited time is not part of the surftime package (because surftime
is only available in some of the country) there off Peak unlimited (sorry
can't remeber what they call it) is indeed part of the surftime package.
Currently subscription to all the fixed fee packages is closed while they
upgrade there network to cope with demand they estimate it will reopen in 3
weeks.
the unlimited is very good and the service is ok nothing great but nothing
bad as well and definately worth Ł10 a month
Simon
Cliff Morrison
<Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> There unlimited time is not part of the surftime package (because surftime
> is only available in some of the country) there off Peak unlimited (sorry
> can't remeber what they call it) is indeed part of the surftime package.
> Currently subscription to all the fixed fee packages is closed while they
> upgrade there network to cope with demand they estimate it will reopen in 3
> weeks.
> the unlimited is very good and the service is ok nothing great but nothing
> bad as well and definately worth Ł10 a month
It looks like the two options (Unlimited and Surftime) will be available
to me at near enough the same time, so will have to decide which to go
for.... don't really want to sign up with BT Internret on Surftime if
Freeserve will work ok on it instead; but as an alternative how do you
find Unlimited performs for access and speed? Is it a good (ie.
up-to-date) news-server?
Reckon I'd still continue either of my Dircon or Zetnet accounts for
anything important though.
Simon
"Cliff Morrison" <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cliffm-2708...@th-gt148-240.pool.dircon.co.uk...
> <Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > There unlimited time is not part of the surftime package (because
surftime
> > is only available in some of the country) there off Peak unlimited
(sorry
> > can't remeber what they call it) is indeed part of the surftime package.
> > Currently subscription to all the fixed fee packages is closed while
they
> > upgrade there network to cope with demand they estimate it will reopen
in 3
> > weeks.
> > the unlimited is very good and the service is ok nothing great but
nothing
>
> It looks like the two options (Unlimited and Surftime) will be available
> to me at near enough the same time, so will have to decide which to go
> for.... don't really want to sign up with BT Internret on Surftime if
> Freeserve will work ok on it instead; but as an alternative how do you
> find Unlimited performs for access and speed? Is it a good (ie.
> up-to-date) news-server?
> Reckon I'd still continue either of my Dircon or Zetnet accounts for
> anything important though.
I find unlimited is pretty good on speed (get about 7.5K on a single ISDN)
very few engaged tones. The freeserve newserver is slow but up to date so I
use it for all the non-binary groups. I've found them to be alot better than
BT internet at just about everything but not as good as Nildram or Globalnet
I just can't justify the phone bills with them. There is supposed to be a 2
hour cutoff (nothing to stop you immediately connecting again) but I don't
seem to get this!!!
Value for money wise they cannot be beaten and have the advantage of running
on a BT line.
Simon
Paris
Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Indeed. It would be like (very) old times.
>
> (To digress, I am constantly amused whenever somebody who wishes to
> "modernise Britain" and "discard feudal hang-overs" comes up with
> proposals which themselves derive from feudalism and a feudal idea of
> human relationships (ie, treating people as groups/classes/races
> rather than individuals).)
People often exhibit common behaviour, even if it does go against the
new PC gospel.
Simply denying that the poor form a disenfranchised class of people is
the way in which the middle classes have always got on with things.
In feudal times they simply ignored the poor, now they have invented
political correctness and libertarianism to hide their hypocrisy/guilt
behind.
My modernised Britain would truly irradicate the classes once and for
all, and it would start by acknowledging their existance.
It wouldn't simply deny their existance in a brief trip to Liverpool.
Comprehensive kids would read Platos' republic instead of cider with
rosie. They'd be asked to think about debt, bank charges and interest.
They'd be taught to keep hold of their reciepts and above all, NEVER to
pay PAYE when they can dodge their taxes like the middle classes do.
Instead of metalwork they'd do Law. Instead of RE they'd do philosophy.
There'd be a state mortguage system in place of council housing.
There'd be more autonomy for the regions...
But, you've heard me say all this before..
--
Paris
david....@nopam.btinternet.com (David J Rainey) wrote:
> Yes, they are run on a commercial basis for the benefit of
shareholders,
> who maximise profits by providing a superior serivice.
Using the traditional methods: Cut staff, sell buildings, reduce backup
systems....
The state cannot be found to be employing these tactics. Afterall they
have to be re-elected. But a private sector monopoly, that'll do nicely.
Everytime that BT customers have been given a viable alternative they
have left the service in droves. Failures by companies such as IONICA
are only temporary anomolies in the general trend..
People are moving away from BT, and despite fierce odds and dirty
tactics the competition is multiplying in the mobile and cable sectors.
> How would they have benefitted from the new technology when
> they invested a fraction of what other advanced economies
> were investing?
You don't fit a new clutch in your astra if you know you're going to
sell it, you dab on a bit of touch up paint.
> In the 1970's, The UK phone network received the equivalent of GBP 12
per
> person per year in investment. The French and Germans got GBP 30 per
> person, with the Americans spending GBP 50 per person on new,
reliable
> electronic switches. In the first ten years of privatisation, BT
invested
> almost GBP23 billion.
So that's 7 less then the Germans/French then?
> Employment is a means to an end, and should never be an end
> in itself, otherwise you end up with teams of people filling
> holes that have been dug by another team.
Straight out of the book. The shareholders would be proud.
I aren't going to have this debate here. I'm labour, you're capital.
I was brought up to believe that you should be nice to people, never
lie and above all never to steal or be greedy.
Sure perhaps I'd have done better in my life if I hadn't. Perhaps I
might even be a director at BT.
> Pardon?
There would probably be more employees, all paying tax and not drawing
benefit. You say that BT pay corporation tax, and that is how they
benefit the country and it's economy as a whole. I say that more jobs
means less benefits and more PAYE.
> Oh no you don't. You are alleging that Oftel is a BT puppet, so you
> should be able to provide some evidence for it, not recite a number
of
> judgements that were either FOR BT, or, more likely, judgements that
> meant BT didn't have to pay to help competitors cherry pick the best
> customers.
I don't have to dance to your tune, I look at it this way:
If enough people say that a bloke is called fred, chances are that's
his name.
Read the papers and see what most people think about OFTEL.
You're in a minority.
> I'm seeing no knowledge here. Feel free to show some.
Ahh, the usenet poltroon. Sticks and stones old boy.
> Indeed.
Again, I think when you look around for support you'll find that most
people don't believe the BT/OFTEL press releases.
> You mean reports you disagree with. Big deal.
I don't agree with them because they are blatent lies.
Has BT unbundled the Local loop? Has it provided the flat rate access
it said it would. Has it rolled out ADSL. Has it lowered it's prices in
line with the competition?
> http://www.bt.com/World/mediacentre/releases/2000/nr66.htm
>
> "Using BT's Surftime, BT phone customers are able to dial any one of
> around 30 ISPs, including Freeserve and from this month Demon, with
> others joining all the time. We have over 200,000 registered Surftime
> customers already, proving that unmetered Internet access is entirely
> possible if you have a business model based in the real world.
> So Demon doesn't quite have FRA NOW, but will very soon.
The end of August. Of course it was the end of June, July....
> But the biggest ISP in the land DOES, as do 29+ others. And this is a
barefaced lie is
> it?
I live near Leeds, one of the ten biggest cities in the UK.
Why haven't I got flat rate access yet?
> When I was a teenager, I read the Adrian Mole books and have always
> remembered one particular entry in the diary:-
>
> "My father complained about the cost of my new pyjamas, and said that
> when he was my age, he slept in an old coal sack. I thought this
sounded
> dubious, so I called my Grandmother. She said that he slept in an old
> FLOUR sack. So, I now know my father is a pathological liar"
>
> I think you missed the point.
I think you are a BT Stooge, and your mealy mouthed statistical
wizardry isn't cutting the mustard.
The public know that BT are holding back, and that OFTEL are doing
nothing about it. Simply repeating that BT are doing everything they
can in stuck record fashion isn't advancing the debate, it's just
sophism.
> The press release suggests otherwise.
Of course it does. That's what it was intended to do.
> 1) British Telecom was seperated from the GPO way before
privatisation.
> 2) British Telecom was profitable, to the tune of about 800M pa.
> 3) The combined nationalised industries cost every taxpayer 200pounds
in
> subsidies.
Lies damn lies and statistics.
> And service has improved.
Because of technological advances.
> In 1984, fewer than 20% of customers had a PSTN
> line installed in less than two weeks. In 1996, 97% of
> all PSTN lines were installed to the customer agreed
> date, with 89% within five working days. 95% of
> faults are cleared within four hours for businesses,
> and 80% within nine hours for residential.
Now plot that curve alongside car ownership....
Yawn..
> Are you joking? They already WERE a monopoly, and a legally protected
one
> at that.
Yes but they were an accountable monopoly..
That's why they had to go.
> The same act of parliament the set the ground for the
> Privatisation of BT also allowed Barclays and C&W & BP (or it might
have
> been Shell) to form Mercury.
> They will make huge profits because no one could comprehend how
> inefficiently run they were as a division of the civil service.
I suppose that public sector workers must all be thick headed plankton
feeders then. Seems the only explaination to me.
> Benefits will be largely passed onto the customer by competition and
by
> means of the RPI-X% formula. These, combined, effects reduced call
costs
> in the first ten years by 59%.
Awww purllleeeze.
In those ten years, VHS won over Betamax and I bought my first sony
walkman.
> The public get a third of BT's profits by corporation tax. A third of
> those profits are re-invested. A third are dispersed to Shareholders
as
> dividends, which pay for pensions and insurance schemes. Dividends to
> individuals are taxed at between 23 and 40%.
They a third for re-investment is too low evidently.
I suspect that the shareholders are getting far too good a deal.
> Are you saying BT are going to go bankrupt?
No I'm suggesting that they will be bought up by Deutche Telekom and
then asset stripped. A few years down the line DT will announce that it
is to pull out of BT as it's making a loss and can't be redeamed. Oh,
but we're keeping the satallites and the lucratice mobile market...
You can keep the pips and skin.
> What huge cost?
Drive through Sheffield.
> This is complete rubbish. The shares were parcelled out in small
> quantities to private investors, and the bulk were sold to pension
firms.
Who is the major shareholder in BT and how many shares do they posess
as a percentage?
> If a tiny number of people, now living abroad for tax reasons, made a
> killing, you should have no trouble in naming five! </Marc Living
mode>
It was a throwaway line as well you know.
> Blimey, so the jews are to blame, or might be to blame in the future?
I
> think we are one step away from invoking godwins law. Go on, make my
> day.....
Capitalism is to blame, and traditionally the politically incorect
stereotype is that Jews are behind capitalism (Spike milligan dressed
as authodox jew, playing cash till as a musical instrument..)
Particularly American Capitalism. Hollywood is largely run by Jews, and
it is largely in the business (at least nowadays) or re-writing recent
history wholesale.
> How does this relate to BT?
That's what BT did.
> I presume you are talking about Microsoft's $500M investment in them?
So
> what? There is no such thing as unlimited financial backing, and here
MS
> are investing in, among other things, a tame client to host Windows
based
> set-top boxes.
Microsoft want the british internet market. To garauntee that they need
the british telecoms market. Microsoft are using NTL as a trojan horse.
That last bit 'set-top boxes', that's the clincher. Who is the telecoms
company who make set top boxes and have a large market share?
> American Companies wait until their Unique Selling Proposition is no
> longer unique before launching an assault? Really?
You can do one of two things.
You can wrestle your larger opponent until you are exhausted.
Or you can stand pointing to your chin and sidestep when he punches you.
Then you stick your leg out and trip him with his own momentum.
This will be the manner of BT's end.
> Does any finance analyst share this rather outlandish view, or are
you
> getting a bit carried away?
We'll, come back to this thread in 5 years shall we.
<rest snipped>
BennyHill
"Cliff Morrison" <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> took time out of his busy day to
write in message
news:cliffm-2708...@th-gt148-240.pool.dircon.co.uk...
> > It looks like the two options (Unlimited and Surftime) will be available
> to me at near enough the same time, so will have to decide which to go
> for.... don't really want to sign up with BT Internret on Surftime if
> Freeserve will work ok on it instead; but as an alternative how do you
> find Unlimited performs for access and speed? Is it a good (ie.
> up-to-date) news-server?
<snip>
The Freeserve Unlimited service is highly variable across the country -->
some areas are excellent, others including mine are very poor (I have to
redial many times to get connected and generally give up between 5:30 and
10:30 at night.) Freeserve have admitted this problem exists and are
presently installing new equipment to cope with the demand.
Basically at the moment it is pot luck.
Benny
Cliff Morrison
True, but don't you also support the EU as it is -- an Establishment
ruled, centralised Euroreich which through the IMF/WB compliant diktats of
the EuroCentral Bank would prevent any of these good things being done....
David J Rainey
> > Yes, they are run on a commercial basis for the benefit of
> shareholders,
> > who maximise profits by providing a superior serivice.
> Using the traditional methods: Cut staff, sell buildings,
Cut staff you don't need, sell buildings that were built for a) equipment
that is obsolete and b) for staff you now longer have.
> reduce backup systems....
Rubbish. The cost of failure is too high.
> The state cannot be found to be employing these tactics. Afterall they
> have to be re-elected.
Yes, they concentrate on cosmetics, like how many people are employed.
The GPO was a laighing stock.
> Everytime that BT customers have been given a viable alternative they
> have left the service in droves.
Indeed, and then many flock right back when they find out it's not all
necter and ambrosia and that, hey, the costs aren't that cheap after all.
> You don't fit a new clutch in your astra if you know you're going to
> sell it, you dab on a bit of touch up paint.
So Heath, Wilson and Callahan and the first Thatcher Governments cut back
on investment in the telecoms network because they knew it was going to
be sold off in 84?
> So that's 7 less then the Germans/French then?
Pardon? 7 what less?
> > Employment is a means to an end, and should never be an end
> > in itself, otherwise you end up with teams of people filling
> > holes that have been dug by another team.
>
> Straight out of the book. The shareholders would be proud.
Tick one
a) Employment is a means to an end.
b) Employment is an end in itself.
> I aren't going to have this debate here. I'm labour, you're capital.
Speak for yourself
> I was brought up to believe that you should be nice to people,
As was I. But not to be a doormat.
> Sure perhaps I'd have done better in my life if I hadn't. Perhaps I
> might even be a director at BT.
Sigh.
> There would probably be more employees, all paying tax and not drawing
> benefit.
But this would either reduce the profits, or increase the prices. Reduced
profits will hit pensioners and holders of insurance policies, ie the
common man. Increased prices are self evidently not a good thing if you
are paying people to do work that does not need doing.
> You say that BT pay corporation tax, and that is how they
> benefit the country and it's economy as a whole.
BT benefit the country and the economy as a whole by providing a low
cost, high quality telecommunications service. The taxes paid are neither
a benefit nor a cost to the UK as a whole, simply a transfer. However,
the figures do suggest that the government was able to sell an asset but
retain the revenue streams at a largely similar level.
> I say that more jobs
> means less benefits and more PAYE.
Indeed. But who picks up the tab for the employment in jobs that no
longer need to be done? Customers and Shareholders?
> I don't have to dance to your tune, I look at it this way:
> If enough people say that a bloke is called fred, chances are that's
> his name.
> Read the papers and see what most people think about OFTEL.
> You're in a minority.
Oh quite probably. Mind you, 99% of people think that Oftel is there to
DIRECTLY make sure the customer obtains the best deal.
99% of people are wrong. They aren't. They are there to police and set
regulation to make sure that BT doesn't crush the competition, and that
it is competition and it's effect on BT that will produce customer
benefit.
> > I'm seeing no knowledge here. Feel free to show some.
> Ahh, the usenet poltroon. Sticks and stones old boy.
Sorry, that was not meant to sound insulting, but I work in the telecoms
industry, and yes, in a previous job I worked for BT. BT are currently
one of my principle suppliers, and they are not perfect by any means. But
I simply do not recognise anything you are saying here as correct to the
industry that I work in.
> I don't agree with them because they are blatent lies.
Nonsense.
> Has BT unbundled the Local loop?
It is not required to have done so yet.
> Has it provided the flat rate access
> it said it would.
Yes. I believe it was late, but I'm rolling it out to a customer in the
next couple of weeks. A former colleague has already done so.
> Has it rolled out ADSL.
Yes, and it has 35% coverage, more than any other country in Europe apart
from Germany, though the Forrester Report I read suggested that DT would
have 50% by by Jan 2001, not now.
> Has it lowered it's prices in
> line with the competition?
Yes.
> > So Demon doesn't quite have FRA NOW, but will very soon.
> The end of August. Of course it was the end of June, July....
You'll have to ask Demon. Why do Freeserve have it?
> I live near Leeds, one of the ten biggest cities in the UK.
> Why haven't I got flat rate access yet?
Leeds has Surftime ports, perhaps not your local exchange.
> I think you are a BT Stooge,
Here we go. No, I happen to work in telecommunications, and I formerly
worked for BT. I happen to think I know a bit about the industry. Your
perceptions are common ones for sure, but mistaken ones nontheless.
> and your mealy mouthed statistical
> wizardry isn't cutting the mustard.
It's called evidence. And where is yours? Other than "everybody knows"?
> The public know that BT are holding back, and that OFTEL are doing
> nothing about it. Simply repeating that BT are doing everything they
> can in stuck record fashion isn't advancing the debate, it's just
> sophism.
I'm producing evidence to back up my claims, you are the one who is
simply repeating "what the public know".
> Lies damn lies and statistics.
You mispelled "inconvenient facts"
> > And service has improved.
> Because of technological advances.
What technological advanced made it easier to install phone lines in days
rather than weeks? Even on the same exchanges that had been around for
years?
> Now plot that curve alongside car ownership....
Can't find any stats on car ownership, but from 82-92, the number of new
registrations increased by 30%. So what?
> Yes but they were an accountable monopoly..
> That's why they had to go.
Oh well, as long as they were accountable. I mean, you couldn't choose
any discount schemes based on high usage, or own your own telephone or
even get one inside a month, but it was accountable.
> > They will make huge profits because no one could comprehend how
> > inefficiently run they were as a division of the civil service.
> I suppose that public sector workers must all be thick headed plankton
> feeders then. Seems the only explaination to me.
Hardly, given my father was a GPO engineer at the time. Inefficient
doesn't mean stupid.
> > These, combined, effects reduced call costs
> > in the first ten years by 59%.
> Awww purllleeeze.
> In those ten years, VHS won over Betamax and I bought my first sony
> walkman.
I think you are trying to make the point that technology moves and makes
things cheaper. And it does, but telcos are not technology companies,
IMV, even though it is central to the way they must operate. This is why
BT do not manufacture equipment and why AT&T spun off it's REAL
technology division. The core business is buying equipment and
efficiently managing it to provide services.
If the cost of a compenent in a solution falls by 99%, do you say that
the cost of the solution will also fall by 99%?
> > The public get a third of BT's profits by corporation tax. A third of
> > those profits are re-invested. A third are dispersed to Shareholders as
> > dividends, which pay for pensions and insurance schemes. Dividends to
> > individuals are taxed at between 23 and 40%.
>
> They a third for re-investment is too low evidently.
It's interesting that you jump to this conclusion, but no, the one third
of profits re-invested is only part of the total annual investment.
> I suspect that the shareholders are getting far too good a deal.
Which would be good for pensioners and insurance policy holders. Except,
if it was too good a deal, the share price would rise until it was no
longer too good a deal.
> No I'm suggesting that they will be bought up by Deutche Telekom and
> then asset stripped.
Not a chance on this earth. You really need to read the analysts reports
on this industry. an AT&T merger is possible, some may even say
desirable, but not with DT.
> A few years down the line DT will announce that it
> is to pull out of BT as it's making a loss and can't be redeamed.
If I have to point out the difference between Rover and BT, there really
is no point in having this discussion.
> Oh, but we're keeping the satallites
Oh, which satellites are these?
> and the lucratice mobile market...
and the repayments for overlapping 3G licenses. Ooops!
> > What huge cost?
> Drive through Sheffield.
The last time I was in Sheffield was to visit two software firms. The
biggest problem is recruitment, not enough skilled staff.
> Who is the major shareholder in BT and how many shares do they posess
> as a percentage?
The biggest shareholder in BT will be either a pension, life assurance or
similar institution. I'd be surprised if the stake was more than 4-5% In
fact, I think the BT & Post Office Pension Fund, is the largest. It's
certainly in the top ten.
Who do you say is the major shareholder, and what %age do you say they
own?
> It was a throwaway line as well you know.
Ah, nonsense then.
> > Blimey, so the jews are to blame, or might be to blame in the future?
> I
> > think we are one step away from invoking godwins law. Go on, make my
> > day.....
>
> Capitalism is to blame, and traditionally the politically incorect
> stereotype is that Jews are behind capitalism (Spike milligan dressed
> as authodox jew, playing cash till as a musical instrument..)
> Particularly American Capitalism. Hollywood is largely run by Jews, and
> it is largely in the business (at least nowadays) or re-writing recent
> history wholesale.
So near and yet so far. Go on, mention the little Austrian and we can end
this right now.....
> > How does this relate to BT?
> That's what BT did.
Cobblers.
> Microsoft want the british internet market. To garauntee that they need
> the british telecoms market. Microsoft are using NTL as a trojan horse.
And Telewest?
> That last bit 'set-top boxes', that's the clincher.
What do you mean, "clincher". For the MS investment? I'd agree.
> Who is the telecoms
> company who make set top boxes and have a large market share?
Who MAKE Set-top-boxes? No idea.
> > American Companies wait until their Unique Selling Proposition is no
> > longer unique before launching an assault? Really?
>
> You can do one of two things.
> You can wrestle your larger opponent until you are exhausted.
> Or you can stand pointing to your chin and sidestep when he punches you.
> Then you stick your leg out and trip him with his own momentum.
> This will be the manner of BT's end.
It what way is NTL holding back on deploying broadband access until BT is
ready with ADSL analagous to Judo? Are you seriously suggesting that NTL
are going to squander their first mover advantage until the BT Marketing
Machine kicks into gear and has ADSL ET ads morning noon and night?
> > Does any finance analyst share this rather outlandish view, or are
> > you getting a bit carried away?
> We'll, come back to this thread in 5 years shall we.
So you were getting a bit carried away.
Coming back in five years is a good idea though.
regards
David
Robert Howard
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in article
<cliffm-2708...@th-gt146-233.pool.dircon.co.uk>...
> >
> > My modernised Britain would truly irradicate the classes once and for
> > all, and it would start by acknowledging their existance.
> > It wouldn't simply deny their existance in a brief trip to Liverpool.
You will never get rid of class distinction. It is built into human nature.
Why else do the top people all live in one place and the bottom people live
together somewhere else?
Bob Howard.
Cliff Morrison
<rho...@thenet.co.nz> wrote:
Well it was Paris who wrote that, actually...
But I reckon he is right that in Britain there is a lot of hypocritical
denial and selective bindness goes on, and the NuLab Blairites are
absolutely chronic with it.
Mind you, the US would seem to have wealth-based class hatred and snobbery too.
Marc Living
>In article <mrvfqso6icganave0...@4ax.com>,
> Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
><snip>
>> Indeed. It would be like (very) old times.
>> (To digress, I am constantly amused whenever somebody who wishes to
>> "modernise Britain" and "discard feudal hang-overs" comes up with
>> proposals which themselves derive from feudalism and a feudal idea of
>> human relationships (ie, treating people as groups/classes/races
>> rather than individuals).)
>People often exhibit common behaviour, even if it does go against the
>new PC gospel.
Of course people will exhibit common behaviour. But that doesn't mean
that we can assume that the same people will have the same behaviour
as everybody else.
Had you met my step-father, you would have assumed that he would have
liked watching football and going to the pub. In fact he liked driving
horses in competition (in carriages he built himself) and going to the
pub.
Likewise, a friend of his, who drove a Robin Reliant, and lived in a
council house, kept Polo ponies.
I, otoh, am supposed - according to the stereotype - to like opera and
wine bars: whereas I prefer footie and going to the pub.
IME, very few people live up to stereotypes.
>Simply denying that the poor form a disenfranchised class of people is
>the way in which the middle classes have always got on with things.
>In feudal times they simply ignored the poor, now they have invented
>political correctness and libertarianism to hide their hypocrisy/guilt
>behind.
There wasn't much by the way of a middle class in feudal times. The
nearest that came to a middle class would have been the merchants and
lower clergy.
>My modernised Britain would truly irradicate the classes once and for
>all, and it would start by acknowledging their existance.
>It wouldn't simply deny their existance in a brief trip to Liverpool.
And what is it you say is the definition of "working class" which
distinguishes them from the "middle class"?
>Comprehensive kids would read Platos' republic instead of cider with
>rosie.
Excellent idea. And Aristotle, and some of the 18th and 19th century
political philosophers: together with a thorough grounding in logic,
rhetoric and jurisprudence. To be acquainted with such subjects would
prepare schoolboys for adult life *far* better than an ability to
"empathise" with a hand-loom weaver.
Of course, it would have the additional effect of making it far more
difficult for pols (and the media) to pull the wool over their eyes -
so it is unlikely ever to be introduced.
>They'd be asked to think about debt, bank charges and interest.
>They'd be taught to keep hold of their reciepts and above all, NEVER to
>pay PAYE when they can dodge their taxes like the middle classes do.
I see. So your definition of "middle class" is "somebody who isn't
employed":-)
>Instead of metalwork they'd do Law. Instead of RE they'd do philosophy.
>There'd be a state mortguage system in place of council housing.
>There'd be more autonomy for the regions...
This will only happen;
(a) when idiots stop blaming "the guv'ment" for things which are
supposed to be handled locally (how many times have you heard people
blame "the Tories" for the deplorable state of (mainly Labour run)
education authorities?); and
(b) when (usually the same) idiots stop complaining that "it isn't
fair" that because they live in Yshire, they cannot get some "service"
which is offered in Xborough.
If people are going to blame the central government for the failings
of local government, then central government is going to take the
power commensurate with the responsibility which has been forced on
them.
Likewise, if people want local autonomy, they have to accept that
different localities will do things different ways. The problem is
that people want to have their cake and eat it.
>But, you've heard me say all this before..
And I shall no doubt hear you say it again:-)
David J Rainey
Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk says...
> > Against some mythical gold standard where every one has 2Gb/s to the
> > home?
Did Germany have a regulatory enviroment which forbade selling services
below cost? The NTE's cost about GBP200 each and the design of the
exchanges did not make mass ISDN attractive.
DT did not have that problem, and it could also set fixed line rental and
usage charges without any competitive consequences.
Even the City recognised the problem.
"Ironically, given Oftel’s current pro-internet stance,
BT was actually held back by the regulator from pricing its ISDN product
more competitively."
Page 21 - HSBC James Capel Analyst Report on BT
> or the availability of ADSL in the USA
ADSL is available to 35% of UK households. How many households in the US
have ADSL access?
> or even kingston telecom in the UK
Kingston Telecom, the Luxembourg of telecoms metrics...... :-)
> > What lie was told about ADSL?
> Available june 2000 (its not unless your a company) or how about surftime
> coming in the spring 2000.
ADSL was available in July, AFAIK. However, none of the ISP's offering
retail services have delivered, even BTOpenworld.
Surftime was delayed, I agree. However, how does that relate to lies on
the Channel 4 News last week?
Mistakes happen, services can be delayed. When MS slips shipping dates
for Software, were its previous dates "barefaced lies?"
> > > more like 50% residential share now
> > 50% of homes are on cable?
> Nope Bt have about a 50% share of the resedential market...lots of people
> use BT lines (no other choice) but OLO for billing ie worldcom
If you are including resellers, then I agree that market share is less
than 85%.
However, the same HSBC analysts report suggests that BT carries 19
billion out of a total of 25 billion long distance calls, and 1.7 billion
our of a total of 2.8 billion international calls.
Call volume is not, IMV, a good way to measure market share, because it's
revenue that is important, not tranactions. However, BT will be
relatively expensive compared to the other carriers, but I accept that
those other carrier may enjoy longer call durations - residential
telephony being quite an elastic commodity. Then there are local calls,
not analysed comparitively in the report. However, local calls would both
me more numerous and be skewed towards BT, as most resellers offer the
best rates on calls whihc use their network, not hop on hop off calls.
If you have market revenue share figures, I'd be happy to see them. But
otherwise I'd have to say that the data I do have suggests a MUCH higher
market share than 50%.
> > > and there still one of the top 6
> > Not the last time I looked.
> Were in March 2000 if its changed who replaced them
I might have to concede this one, my figures were older than this. Damn.
OK, seventh biggest! :-)
> Why do none of these companies offer a credible alternative?
> They do if you live in the right area (around 2012 were I am)
"Suitable area", now theres a turn of phrase. I'm unlucky then, living
the the rural Isle of Dogs, no Cable Modem for me....
> Seem to have managed to roll it out quite well in the states years ahead of
> us
The US market for the Internet is far more mature. In 1997, the internet
was still "gee-whiz" in the UK. I went to the US for the first time that
year and was amazed at the pervasiveness of the Net, and how my apartment
complex had an Internet Room in the lobby, for people who didn't want a
PC in the flat.
But, it seems to me that ADSL is not nearly as widely available in the US
as people seem to believe.
> > Did you hear Vallance's speach to the TMA?
> Yes
Oh, so you didn't like it then. :-)
I thought it was spot on.
> What could have been done when they were privatised (also see 1 above) add
> to that merely being the best of a bad bunch doesn't make them good.
Au contraire, many people would say that is all they need to be. Of
course, actively pursuing that strategy means you are setting yourself up
for a nasty fall when someone really good comes along.
> > We shall see how well Kingston scale.......
> Indeed...seem to be doing ok so far
It's not linear, that's for sure. I worked on office systems with up to
10,000 users, and then went to the US to work on a system for 1M plus. It
was more than 100 times more complex. Ask anyone who went through the
growing pains of Mercury, when written processes had to be learnt and
followed, and not just calling Bob down the corridor, because he knows
what is what.
BTW - re the Register, everytime it has covered something I actually know
about, it get's it wrong. It's the "Daily Record" of IT.
Pleasure talking to you.
regards
David
Simon
"David J Rainey" <david....@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1413ceacd...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> In article <8o461e$v98$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk says...
> > > Against some mythical gold standard where every one has 2Gb/s to the
> > > home?
> > No compared to the cost of ISDN in germany
>
> Did Germany have a regulatory enviroment which forbade selling services
> below cost? The NTE's cost about GBP200 each and the design of the
> exchanges did not make mass ISDN attractive.
No but that doesn't alter the ongoing costs of ISDN as opposed to the
installation costs.
>
> DT did not have that problem, and it could also set fixed line rental and
> usage charges without any competitive consequences.
So could BT.
>
> Even the City recognised the problem.
>
> "Ironically, given Oftel's current pro-internet stance,
> BT was actually held back by the regulator from pricing its ISDN product
> more competitively."
Yes the less said about OFTEL the better.
>
> Page 21 - HSBC James Capel Analyst Report on BT
>
> > or the availability of ADSL in the USA
>
> ADSL is available to 35% of UK households. How many households in the US
> have ADSL access?
Don't have exact figures but the latest estimates I have are 42% for
ADSL/DSL and 46% for Cable modem....Excite claim to cover 53% on there
own...so one of those is wrong.
>
> > or even kingston telecom in the UK
>
> Kingston Telecom, the Luxembourg of telecoms metrics...... :-)
Agreed but they are the best available...if your lucky enough
>
> > > What lie was told about ADSL?
> > Available june 2000 (its not unless your a company) or how about
surftime
> > coming in the spring 2000.
>
> ADSL was available in July, AFAIK. However, none of the ISP's offering
> retail services have delivered, even BTOpenworld.
BT openworld is part of BT and is one of BT's standard tactics for avoiding
blame .... Its not really part of us and nothing we can do about it from
both sides leaving the customer stuck with neither department willing to
deal with it.
ADSL in its current form is also different to its original launch plan
DSL is not available
Single users is not available only the Network connection
>
> Surftime was delayed, I agree. However, how does that relate to lies on
> the Channel 4 News last week?
>
> Mistakes happen, services can be delayed. When MS slips shipping dates
> for Software, were its previous dates "barefaced lies?"
Surftime was delayed more than once and the service changed from press
announcement to launch.
snip
>
> If you have market revenue share figures, I'd be happy to see them. But
> otherwise I'd have to say that the data I do have suggests a MUCH higher
> market share than 50%.
I do which puts it just above 50% unfortunately I can't quote them here
>
>
> > > > and there still one of the top 6
> > > Not the last time I looked.
> > Were in March 2000 if its changed who replaced them
>
> I might have to concede this one, my figures were older than this. Damn.
> OK, seventh biggest! :-)
>
> > Why do none of these companies offer a credible alternative?
> > They do if you live in the right area (around 2012 were I am)
>
> "Suitable area", now theres a turn of phrase. I'm unlucky then, living
> the the rural Isle of Dogs, no Cable Modem for me....
Ditto I'm just outside maidstone in Kent. No cable, No ADSL, No surftime etc
etc.
>
> > Seem to have managed to roll it out quite well in the states years ahead
of
> > us
>
> The US market for the Internet is far more mature. In 1997, the internet
> was still "gee-whiz" in the UK. I went to the US for the first time that
> year and was amazed at the pervasiveness of the Net, and how my apartment
> complex had an Internet Room in the lobby, for people who didn't want a
> PC in the flat.
And why is it more mature ...because its more affordable and always has
been.
>
> But, it seems to me that ADSL is not nearly as widely available in the US
> as people seem to believe.
>
> > > Did you hear Vallance's speach to the TMA?
> > Yes
>
> Oh, so you didn't like it then. :-)
> I thought it was spot on.
Some was good but nothing fundamental will change
>
> > What could have been done when they were privatised (also see 1 above)
add
> > to that merely being the best of a bad bunch doesn't make them good.
>
> Au contraire, many people would say that is all they need to be. Of
> course, actively pursuing that strategy means you are setting yourself up
> for a nasty fall when someone really good comes along.
Its enough to keep them profitable and at the top of the tree but it doesn't
make them good/
>
> > > We shall see how well Kingston scale.......
> > Indeed...seem to be doing ok so far
>
> It's not linear, that's for sure. I worked on office systems with up to
> 10,000 users, and then went to the US to work on a system for 1M plus. It
> was more than 100 times more complex. Ask anyone who went through the
> growing pains of Mercury, when written processes had to be learnt and
> followed, and not just calling Bob down the corridor, because he knows
> what is what.
To true.
>
> BTW - re the Register, everytime it has covered something I actually know
> about, it get's it wrong. It's the "Daily Record" of IT.
about a 75% hit ratio for me
Simon
Paris
"Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz> wrote:
> You will never get rid of class distinction. It is built into human
nature.
> Why else do the top people all live in one place and the bottom
people live
> together somewhere else?
A beautiful example of the fatuous fatalism that has perpetuated the
system to the present day...
Paris
Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>>People often exhibit common behaviour, even if it does go against the
>>new PC gospel.
>
> Of course people will exhibit common behaviour. But that doesn't mean
> that we can assume that the same people will have the same behaviour
> as everybody else.
> Had you met my step-father, you would have assumed that he would have
> liked watching football and going to the pub. In fact he liked driving
> horses in competition (in carriages he built himself) and going to the
> pub.
>
> Likewise, a friend of his, who drove a Robin Reliant, and lived in a
> council house, kept Polo ponies.
>
> I, otoh, am supposed - according to the stereotype - to like opera and
> wine bars: whereas I prefer footie and going to the pub.
>
> IME, very few people live up to stereotypes.
Who are you trying to convince me or you?
I think you are trying to find a convenient reason not to address the
problem. Sort of shifting the blame in an intellectually palletable way.
The Americans would call it 'denial'.
Of course classes and groups of people exist, that's why we have such
collective nouns as "Middle England" and "Landed Gentry".
If a person pays PAYE, has bad teeth and a regional accent, chances are
they're a member of the working (or increasingly non-working) classes.
I don't care how many ponies they keep, or what whacky things they do
with latex of a weekend.
> >Simply denying that the poor form a disenfranchised class of people
is
> >the way in which the middle classes have always got on with things.
> >In feudal times they simply ignored the poor, now they have invented
> >political correctness and libertarianism to hide their
hypocrisy/guilt
> >behind.
>
> There wasn't much by the way of a middle class in feudal times. The
> nearest that came to a middle class would have been the merchants and
> lower clergy.
The distinction is not as clear as it was.
Then as now, you can find 50% of the working classes who'll happilly
shoot the other 50% for a keema madras.
> And what is it you say is the definition of "working class" which
> distinguishes them from the "middle class"?
I suppose you want me to tell you that working class people have a P
tatooed on their upper thigh?
One group are given an education encouraging the payment of taxes and
working hard for a meager living. Slapped down whenever they raise
their expectations and beaten when they protest against increasingly
obscene laws. Then when they do what they have been told all their life
and behave like good citizens they are loaded like the pack animals
they are with VAT so that the higher earning middle classes can have
their income tax reduced (you can't claim that back).
The other group is given a proper education and encouraged to claim
back the tax on their over priced petrol.
They then spend the rest of their lives denying that some people can be
grouped together whilst simultaneosly branding whole swathes of the
poplulation anything from 'hooligan' to 'racist'.
This is due to the one underlying characteristic of their class:
Hypocrisy.
> >Comprehensive kids would read Platos' republic instead of cider with
> >rosie.
> Excellent idea. And Aristotle, and some of the 18th and 19th century
> political philosophers: together with a thorough grounding in logic,
> rhetoric and jurisprudence. To be acquainted with such subjects would
> prepare schoolboys for adult life *far* better than an ability to
> "empathise" with a hand-loom weaver.
>
> Of course, it would have the additional effect of making it far more
> difficult for pols (and the media) to pull the wool over their eyes -
> so it is unlikely ever to be introduced.
I think we are having a meeting of minds here...
I'd refer to 'pols and media' as a subset of the 'middle classes',
because you've forgotten their armed wing (the police).
Of course then we have to talk about lawyers and so on... :)
> >They'd be asked to think about debt, bank charges and interest.
> >They'd be taught to keep hold of their reciepts and above all, NEVER
to
> >pay PAYE when they can dodge their taxes like the middle classes do.
>
> I see. So your definition of "middle class" is "somebody who isn't
> employed":-)
Even if I did, that wouldn't be my definition, that would be the one
used by Marx. The workers and the bourgeoisie.
No I distinctly said, those that don't pay PAYE.
> >Instead of metalwork they'd do Law. Instead of RE they'd do
philosophy.
> >There'd be a state mortguage system in place of council housing.
> >There'd be more autonomy for the regions...
>
> This will only happen;
>
> (a) when idiots stop blaming "the guv'ment" for things which are
> supposed to be handled locally (how many times have you heard people
> blame "the Tories" for the deplorable state of (mainly Labour run)
> education authorities?); and
Who is in charge of the national curriculum which would educate these
foolish notions out of the populace?
> (b) when (usually the same) idiots stop complaining that "it isn't
> fair" that because they live in Yshire, they cannot get some "service"
> which is offered in Xborough.
Because a monopoly created by "the guv'ment" is doing what monopolies
created by "the guv'ment" will do...
> If people are going to blame the central government for the failings
> of local government, then central government is going to take the
> power commensurate with the responsibility which has been forced on
> them.
Both you and I know that central government needs 'attenuating', but
unfortunately they have built into the very system about which I am '
complaining that "it isn't fair" ' a little bit of wizardry that keeps
the whole thing going.
The only thing that will change the status quo is violent revolution or
internal reform... Which do you favour?
> Likewise, if people want local autonomy, they have to accept that
> different localities will do things different ways. The problem is
> that people want to have their cake and eat it.
You mean you want us all to sit by idly while you get all the cake and
we get nothing... cheers mate.
Rest assured if we had autonomy, you'd be sharing your cake a lot more
evenly than it is shared now.
> >But, you've heard me say all this before..
>
> And I shall no doubt hear you say it again:-)
Stony ground..
Paris
cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff Morrison) wrote:
> True, but don't you also support the EU as it is -- an Establishment
> ruled, centralised Euroreich which through the IMF/WB compliant
diktats of
> the EuroCentral Bank would prevent any of these good things being
done....
>
Not particularly...
I'm sorry to say it but I favour a move towards away from the US
towards the more socialist EU...
After we have taken this first step we can sort out the Toady business
at a later date...
I think Germans are OK. Airstrip One aint for me..
Paris
cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff Morrison) wrote:
> True, but don't you also support the EU as it is -- an Establishment
> ruled, centralised Euroreich which through the IMF/WB compliant
diktats of
> the EuroCentral Bank would prevent any of these good things being
done....
>
Not particularly...
I'm sorry to say it but I favour a move away from the US towards the
David J Rainey
Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk says...
> > Did Germany have a regulatory enviroment which forbade selling services
> > below cost? The NTE's cost about GBP200 each and the design of the
> > exchanges did not make mass ISDN attractive.
> No but that doesn't alter the ongoing costs of ISDN as opposed to the
> installation costs.
I understood from the then "in-life" Product Manager that the
exchange issue imposed high rental charges, if they were not to be found
guilty of subsiding the "line" product with the "minutes" product.
> > DT did not have that problem, and it could also set fixed line rental and
> > usage charges without any competitive consequences.
> So could BT.
No it couldn't, it faced competition.
A Razor & Razor Blades business model doesn't work when the competiton
are selling compatible razor blades.
> > ADSL is available to 35% of UK households. How many households in the US
> > have ADSL access?
> Don't have exact figures but the latest estimates I have are 42% for
> ADSL/DSL
7% more than the UK in a more digitally mature market. Hardly a disaster.
And it will be along time before it hits 70%, as BT aim to do by early
2002.
> BT openworld is part of BT and is one of BT's standard tactics for avoiding
> blame
A seperation of Wholesale and Retail? No, it's practically essential to
operate in a regulated market.
> .... Its not really part of us and nothing we can do about it
So despite it being available to corporates, no retail operations are yet
selling it? Hmm.
> Surftime was delayed more than once and the service changed from press
> announcement to launch.
Indeed it was, because nobody liked Surftime I, and Surftime II required
some more work. Or should they have gone ahead with I anyway. Damned if
they do.....
> I do which puts it just above 50% unfortunately I can't quote them here
Why on earth not? Is it from a proprietary report which forbids fair use?
Can you quote the source so I can go hunting myself?
I checked the Oftel Website, but their Market Information (assuming it
even covers market share, and breaks it down the way I wanted it) is a
subscription only service.
> > "Suitable area", now theres a turn of phrase. I'm unlucky then, living
> > the the rural Isle of Dogs, no Cable Modem for me....
> Ditto I'm just outside maidstone in Kent. No cable, No ADSL, No surftime etc
> etc.
You find this a lot in the US too. I was chatting to a guy in California
on ICQ the other night, and he was complaining that he is still on a 33k
dial up link, and that Pac Bell weren't making any commitment on when (or
if) they would get to him. He wasn't too far from Sacramento, so he said
anyway.
> And why is it more mature ...because its more affordable and always has
> been.
Umm, no. Low prices are a consequence of maturity, not a cause. It's more
mature at this stage because customers are more receptive to the internet
and technology in general.
> Some was good but nothing fundamental will change
Are we talking about the same speech? I don't remember him claiming that
something was broken and that things would change?
> > BTW - re the Register,
> about a 75% hit ratio for me
7.5% more like :-)
regards
David
Marc Living
>In article <2s8jqs4gbubepjs68...@4ax.com>,
> Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>>>People often exhibit common behaviour, even if it does go against the
>>>new PC gospel.
>> Of course people will exhibit common behaviour. But that doesn't mean
>> that we can assume that the same people will have the same behaviour
>> as everybody else.
>> Had you met my step-father, you would have assumed that he would have
>> liked watching football and going to the pub. In fact he liked driving
>> horses in competition (in carriages he built himself) and going to the
>> pub.
>> Likewise, a friend of his, who drove a Robin Reliant, and lived in a
>> council house, kept Polo ponies.
>> I, otoh, am supposed - according to the stereotype - to like opera and
>> wine bars: whereas I prefer footie and going to the pub.
>> IME, very few people live up to stereotypes.
>Who are you trying to convince me or you?
You, of course.
>I think you are trying to find a convenient reason not to address the
>problem. Sort of shifting the blame in an intellectually palletable way.
>The Americans would call it 'denial'.
I couldn't really give a monkeys what the Americans call it. I call it
"reality".
>Of course classes and groups of people exist, that's why we have such
>collective nouns as "Middle England" and "Landed Gentry".
LoL. Somebody who actually believes in the reality of marketing
stereotypes. Charles Saatchi will be very pleased.
>If a person pays PAYE, has bad teeth and a regional accent, chances are
>they're a member of the working (or increasingly non-working) classes.
How will they be paying PAYE if they aren't working?
>I don't care how many ponies they keep, or what whacky things they do
>with latex of a weekend.
Of course you don't. People are complicated things. Much simpler to
stick with the stereotypes: the world seems so much more
straightforward that way.
>> >Simply denying that the poor form a disenfranchised class of people
>is
>> >the way in which the middle classes have always got on with things.
>> >In feudal times they simply ignored the poor, now they have invented
>> >political correctness and libertarianism to hide their
>hypocrisy/guilt
>> >behind.
>> There wasn't much by the way of a middle class in feudal times. The
>> nearest that came to a middle class would have been the merchants and
>> lower clergy.
>The distinction is not as clear as it was.
>Then as now, you can find 50% of the working classes who'll happilly
>shoot the other 50% for a keema madras.
Maybe in your neck of the woods. Around here though it has to be a
vindaloo before guns are drawn:-)
>> And what is it you say is the definition of "working class" which
>> distinguishes them from the "middle class"?
>I suppose you want me to tell you that working class people have a P
>tatooed on their upper thigh?
It would be nice if you told me that: since I would then know for sure
that you were taking the piss.
>One group are given an education encouraging the payment of taxes and
>working hard for a meager living. Slapped down whenever they raise
>their expectations and beaten when they protest against increasingly
>obscene laws. Then when they do what they have been told all their life
>and behave like good citizens they are loaded like the pack animals
>they are with VAT so that the higher earning middle classes can have
>their income tax reduced (you can't claim that back).
>The other group is given a proper education and encouraged to claim
>back the tax on their over priced petrol.
I must have gone to the former type. I certainly don't remember my
school ever giving advice on tax.
>They then spend the rest of their lives denying that some people can be
>grouped together whilst simultaneosly branding whole swathes of the
>poplulation anything from 'hooligan' to 'racist'.
You are now talking about journos and pols.
>This is due to the one underlying characteristic of their class:
>Hypocrisy.
Ah! You are defining middle class to mean "journos and pols". I otoh
place them in the lumpenproletariat: people who neither own capital
nor do anything useful but instead spend their lives stealing from
(and/or defrauding) others.
>> >Comprehensive kids would read Platos' republic instead of cider with
>> >rosie.
>> Excellent idea. And Aristotle, and some of the 18th and 19th century
>> political philosophers: together with a thorough grounding in logic,
>> rhetoric and jurisprudence. To be acquainted with such subjects would
>> prepare schoolboys for adult life *far* better than an ability to
>> "empathise" with a hand-loom weaver.
>> Of course, it would have the additional effect of making it far more
>> difficult for pols (and the media) to pull the wool over their eyes -
>> so it is unlikely ever to be introduced.
>I think we are having a meeting of minds here...
>I'd refer to 'pols and media' as a subset of the 'middle classes',
>because you've forgotten their armed wing (the police).
See above.
>Of course then we have to talk about lawyers and so on... :)
No we don't.
>> >They'd be asked to think about debt, bank charges and interest.
>> >They'd be taught to keep hold of their reciepts and above all, NEVER
>to
>> >pay PAYE when they can dodge their taxes like the middle classes do.
>>
>> I see. So your definition of "middle class" is "somebody who isn't
>> employed":-)
>Even if I did, that wouldn't be my definition, that would be the one
>used by Marx. The workers and the bourgeoisie.
You mean you distinguish between those who own capital (eg pensioners)
and those who don't - like me:-(
What have you got against pensioners?
>No I distinctly said, those that don't pay PAYE.
Which means that they aren't employed. If you *are* employed, you pay
PAYE.
>> >Instead of metalwork they'd do Law. Instead of RE they'd do
>philosophy.
>> >There'd be a state mortguage system in place of council housing.
>> >There'd be more autonomy for the regions...
>> This will only happen;
>> (a) when idiots stop blaming "the guv'ment" for things which are
>> supposed to be handled locally (how many times have you heard people
>> blame "the Tories" for the deplorable state of (mainly Labour run)
>> education authorities?); and
>Who is in charge of the national curriculum which would educate these
>foolish notions out of the populace?
Do you say that the things we have been discussing were taught before
the national curriculum was put in place?
>> (b) when (usually the same) idiots stop complaining that "it isn't
>> fair" that because they live in Yshire, they cannot get some "service"
>> which is offered in Xborough.
>Because a monopoly created by "the guv'ment" is doing what monopolies
>created by "the guv'ment" will do...
Aha! You believe that there should be competition between LAs.
Interesting thought.
Poll 1: Good evening sir, I am from the Hampshire CC and our rates of
council tax are very reasonable. Please join us.
Poll 2: Take no notice of him. We at the Alternative Hampshire CC
have much lower rates of council tax and, if you agree to join us, we
will give you free air miles.
Poll 3: Take no notice of either of them. We at NuHampshire CC not
only promise to match the lowest rates offered (or double the
difference back), we will also guarantee that your bins will be
emptied into clean green dustcarts - so you will not only be saving
money, you will also be helping the environment.
By jove ... you may be onto something there:-)
>> If people are going to blame the central government for the failings
>> of local government, then central government is going to take the
>> power commensurate with the responsibility which has been forced on
>> them.
>Both you and I know that central government needs 'attenuating', but
>unfortunately they have built into the very system about which I am '
>complaining that "it isn't fair" ' a little bit of wizardry that keeps
>the whole thing going.
I agree that Whitehall has never had to be dragged kicking and
screaming into granting itself more power.
>The only thing that will change the status quo is violent revolution or
>internal reform... Which do you favour?
That depends.
>> Likewise, if people want local autonomy, they have to accept that
>> different localities will do things different ways. The problem is
>> that people want to have their cake and eat it.
>You mean you want us all to sit by idly while you get all the cake and
>we get nothing... cheers mate.
That would be nice.
>Rest assured if we had autonomy, you'd be sharing your cake a lot more
>evenly than it is shared now.
If you are all depending on my cake, I'm afraid that you are in for a
big disappointment. You would do better to cook your own.
Simon
> I understood from the then "in-life" Product Manager that the
> exchange issue imposed high rental charges, if they were not to be found
> guilty of subsiding the "line" product with the "minutes" product.
Fair enough
>
> > > DT did not have that problem, and it could also set fixed line rental
and
> > > usage charges without any competitive consequences.
> > So could BT.
>
> No it couldn't, it faced competition.
It could have run on a much slimmer profit margin than it did (as it now
does)
>
> A Razor & Razor Blades business model doesn't work when the competiton
> are selling compatible razor blades.
Agreed
>
> > > ADSL is available to 35% of UK households. How many households in the
US
> > > have ADSL access?
> > Don't have exact figures but the latest estimates I have are 42% for
> > ADSL/DSL
>
> 7% more than the UK in a more digitally mature market. Hardly a disaster.
> And it will be along time before it hits 70%, as BT aim to do by early
> 2002.
Your ignoring the states problem with distance
>
> > BT openworld is part of BT and is one of BT's standard tactics for
avoiding
> > blame
>
> A seperation of Wholesale and Retail? No, it's practically essential to
> operate in a regulated market.
Yes but its still used as an excuse.
>
> > .... Its not really part of us and nothing we can do about it
>
> So despite it being available to corporates, no retail operations are yet
> selling it? Hmm.
????
>
> > Surftime was delayed more than once and the service changed from press
> > announcement to launch.
>
> Indeed it was, because nobody liked Surftime I, and Surftime II required
> some more work. Or should they have gone ahead with I anyway. Damned if
> they do.....
Mainly because of the exchange + charging model
>
> > I do which puts it just above 50% unfortunately I can't quote them here
>
> Why on earth not? Is it from a proprietary report which forbids fair use?
> Can you quote the source so I can go hunting myself?
Because I am not allowed to pass it outside
snip
> You find this a lot in the US too. I was chatting to a guy in California
> on ICQ the other night, and he was complaining that he is still on a 33k
> dial up link, and that Pac Bell weren't making any commitment on when (or
> if) they would get to him. He wasn't too far from Sacramento, so he said
> anyway.
They do have more distance problems than we do.
>
> > And why is it more mature ...because its more affordable and always has
> > been.
>
> Umm, no. Low prices are a consequence of maturity, not a cause. It's more
> mature at this stage because customers are more receptive to the internet
> and technology in general.
I'd disagree low prices lead to a mature market whch will then lead to lower
prices,,,see local free calls in the US (for how many years....yes I know
they had problems with it)
>
> > Some was good but nothing fundamental will change
>
> Are we talking about the same speech? I don't remember him claiming that
> something was broken and that things would change?
I don't remember him saying anything was broken (apart from the share price
which is way undervalued) as for change theres lots of minor tweaking going
on.
>
> > > BTW - re the Register,
> > about a 75% hit ratio for me
>
> 7.5% more like :-)
find them better than that by only read a small minority of there articles
Simon
David J Rainey
Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk says...
> > No it couldn't, it faced competition.
> It could have run on a much slimmer profit margin than it did
Not from the way I understood the costs. I worked on a project to deploy
ISDN2 for a CLEC in the US, it seemed very expensive, but it was 3 years
ago....
> (as it now
> does)
Now much of the equipment has been paid for?
> > 7% more than the UK in a more digitally mature market. Hardly a disaster.
> > And it will be along time before it hits 70%, as BT aim to do by early
> > 2002.
> Your ignoring the states problem with distance
What is the average distance to the CO in the US? I know it is more
widely dispersed, sure, but how does that affect the deployment of the
CO's, I guess I'd assumed they used a varient of BT's Scottish Highland's
strategy - specialised switches.
The CLEC I worked for only had 48 Switches at the time, and were in less
than 30 metro centres.
> Mainly because of the exchange + charging model
Probably.
> > Why on earth not? Is it from a proprietary report which forbids fair use?
> > Can you quote the source so I can go hunting myself?
> Because I am not allowed to pass it outside
Is it proprietary data to your firm? Or can you give me a reference - I'm
not point scoring, I'd like to know.
> I'd disagree low prices lead to a mature market whch will then lead to lower
> prices
It can't lead to a mature market, because that is not a function of
price. Most people who are not buying ADSL are doing so because they
don't see the value/utility, not because it isn't cheap enough. It could
be 10quid per gigabit and they still wouldn't buy it. There was something
in the paper about this not so long ago, a significant %age said they
wouldn't know what to do with the internet, and wouldn't use it.
Despite what us early adopters think, there is no killer app for the
general public for the Internet yet.
I was chatting to a colleague today who has academic business experience
(MBA, I think), she's going to give me some references on markets &
maturity. I'll be back :-)
> I don't remember him saying anything was broken (apart from the share price
> which is way undervalued) as for change theres lots of minor tweaking going
> on.
We are talking about different speeches then. I had the "you've had the
BT bashing on broadband and the internet, now here is the truth".
I'm glad I got out of BT shares at 1460, but unfortunately, all that
money was spend on a month in New Zealand. Bah. If I'd known I'd kept it
to double my shareholding.
> find them better than that by only read a small minority of there articles
I read most, they also cover a couple of my customers.
regards
David
Robin
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>Ah! You are defining middle class to mean "journos and pols". I otoh
>place them in the lumpenproletariat: people who neither own capital
>nor do anything useful but instead spend their lives stealing from
>(and/or defrauding) others.
Probably one of the best definitions of 'lawyer' I have ever read :)
--
Robin
Simon
> Now much of the equipment has been paid for?
So they could have extended the period over which the capital cost is
recouped
>
> > > 7% more than the UK in a more digitally mature market. Hardly a
disaster.
> > > And it will be along time before it hits 70%, as BT aim to do by early
> > > 2002.
> > Your ignoring the states problem with distance
>
> What is the average distance to the CO in the US? I know it is more
> widely dispersed, sure, but how does that affect the deployment of the
> CO's, I guess I'd assumed they used a varient of BT's Scottish Highland's
> strategy - specialised switches.
I have no idea but it must make it more difficult.
snip
> > > Why on earth not? Is it from a proprietary report which forbids fair
use?
> > > Can you quote the source so I can go hunting myself?
> > Because I am not allowed to pass it outside
>
> Is it proprietary data to your firm? Or can you give me a reference - I'm
> not point scoring, I'd like to know.
Its for internal use only and marked not for external use..sorry
>
> > I'd disagree low prices lead to a mature market whch will then lead to
lower
> > prices
>
> It can't lead to a mature market, because that is not a function of
> price. Most people who are not buying ADSL are doing so because they
> don't see the value/utility, not because it isn't cheap enough. It could
> be 10quid per gigabit and they still wouldn't buy it. There was something
> in the paper about this not so long ago, a significant %age said they
> wouldn't know what to do with the internet, and wouldn't use it.
>
> Despite what us early adopters think, there is no killer app for the
> general public for the Internet yet.
now most of the people I know aren't on the net mainly because of cost (I
think ADSL is reasnably priced atm..just not available for the majority)
but even on PSTN it can be exhorbitantly expensive to use..until a decent
unmetered service comes along (freeserves isn't bad but is now unavailable.)
snip
> We are talking about different speeches then. I had the "you've had the
> BT bashing on broadband and the internet, now here is the truth".
sounds similar.
New from silicon...Oftel slams BT over leased line prices which have been
kept artificially high.
Simon
Marc Living
<Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>In article <vlaoqs0an8cc9nrt3...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>>Ah! You are defining middle class to mean "journos and pols". I otoh
>>place them in the lumpenproletariat: people who neither own capital
>>nor do anything useful but instead spend their lives stealing from
>>(and/or defrauding) others.
>Probably one of the best definitions of 'lawyer' I have ever read :)
Wind your neck in and get back to your whippets and clog-dancing you
northern jessie:-)
Doug.
<Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> writes
>In article <Nadp5.600$NR3....@news1.cableinet.net>, Big Daddy
><bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Paris <odes...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>news:8o3ion$ts9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>> In article <kDbp5.464$NR3....@news1.cableinet.net>,
>>> "Big Daddy" <bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I thought that we talking about the 'Arrogant Sate Monopoly'
>>> > that was the GPO.
>>> > But if it was anything like their pluming at that time....Shite?
>>>
>>> Well, my answer would be, about the same as the GPO's system.
>>> My point being that before it was privatised it was as good as anybody
>>> elses system. Since privatisation it has declined to this point.
>>> No ADSL whilst T1 connections are common in the states.
>>> No flat rate, whilst they can't give it away in the states...
>>> And so on..
>>
>>I am with Blueyonder (Telewest) Ł9.99 a month for unlimited surfing, 99%
>>first time log on ,connection speed always around 53K, a few teething
>>problems at first but for the last months now Purr..fect
>
>Is that at all times of the day and does that include the connection
>charge of 4p?
>
>>
>>The reason I have an almost pathological hatred of the GPO is that I had
>>just moved into a new house, I had a telephone at my previous address,
>>shortly after moving I learnt that my dad had terminal cancer so I needed to
>>be on call... would they move me up the mandatory six months waiting
>>list?... would they ****!
>>Even when they eventually condescended to install my phone I wound up
>>sharing a party line with the nosy old bat next door,
>>I also have family members who worked for the old nationalised GPO and have
>>therefore heard things at first hand,
>>I don't blame ex employees for being angry at privatisation.... after all
>>they had a cushy secure well paid job....and then they had to face up to
>>the real world! :o)
>
>There was many things wrong with the old GPO but one thing they were
>excellent about was technical training. Their apprentices *really* were
>given first class training in electronics and telecommunications.
>
>When BT made most of them redundant they had no trouble finding work
>elsewhere.
I was one such. Forty years from labourer to Consultant in fifteen years..
A wonderful Firm with all technical youths drawn from Grammar
schools and told they were the elite heading for high Office at the cutting
edge of technology at all times backed by the world-acclaimed Colleges
at Stone Staffordshire, Harrogate, London and other Cities.
Every man a proud man, proud of his firm and his knowledge. I was
involved a lot with the lining up and designing of the stations equalisers
for the Cantat cables under the sea to the States (24 Ch Carrier system).
Took part in the installation of microwave stations and finally the glass-
fibre cables.
There were downsides though.
The whole set-up was gripped by the old Civil Service elitism
syndrome. The postmaster and postmen were elite. The Engineers , the
ones with the brains, were the Minor and Manipulative Grades. Our
vans were governed to 30 M.P.H. We were not trusted to go any faster
than that. When a breakdown occurred and the Press rang me at Control
for info, I had to put them through to the Postmaster. (Who knew no other
than the problems of how to stuff letters down holes in front doors.)
He would hold them and return to me on a private wire, I would tell him
the situation, and he would then repeat it to them though he didn't have a
clue what the hell he was talking about.
There was no proper supervision, there were plenty of straw bosses.
One remote station colleague had a production line of guitars in his
battery-room. When I was accompanying High rankers on a tour they
were examining the instruments and commenting on the skilled work.
I caused a furore by asking could that skill not be applied to getting the
bloody faults out of this station's system so as to prevent visits by High
rankers whose visit has been prompted by questions in The House?.
A shocked atmosphere descended. I was taken aside by one who
explained, it was not a good thing for morale to demean a colleague.
I said that's all right, but I am having to visit and do the donkey work
clearing the faults.
He patted my shoulder and said confidentially, the immortal words,
"Yes, my dear fellow, but, - (waving his hand at the guitars...,-
"That's just His Style!".
Nevertheless, on Saturday skeleton staff duties I would have a lineman
check in at 4-30pm with his report and I would have no problem telling
him a sick lady's, husband 40 mile away had just reported the phone
"off". The reply was always,
"I'm on my way!" He meant it and it was not just for the overtime, - the
esprit de coeur was brimming again as usual
--Doug.
Doug.
David J Rainey <david....@nopam.btinternet.com> writes
>In article <8o2p4h$66$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, odes...@my-deja.com says...
>> I aren't arguing that private industry is more profitable than
>> national ones. We all know why.
>
>Yes, they are run on a commercial basis for the benefit of shareholders,
>who maximise profits by providing a superior serivice.
You've just got to be kidding. The funding for nationalised Industry
came from the Chancellors Big Pot. That funding was governed by
overall income. P/O Eng was vastly profitable, yet the dishing out was
restricted for development,
The reason privatisation worked is because the funding could be
obtained without tax increases. --- which would then - as now
immediately result in their asses being kicked out of Westminster by the
Stingy public who refused paying the real cost of operations. The postal
System is a typical example. As soon as they could charge what it cost
and the Public paid up willingly: the prices skied but the politician still
sat comfortably in their Offices.
>
>> The fact is that if the GPO had kept the system then they too would
>> have benefited from the fall in price of technology, and we would
>> have been passed the benefits by lower call costs
>
>How would they have benefitted from the new technology when they invested
>a fraction of what other advanced economies were investing?
>
>In the 1970's, The UK phone network received the equivalent of GBP 12 per
>person per year in investment. The French and Germans got GBP 30 per
>person, with the Americans spending GBP 50 per person on new, reliable
>electronic switches. In the first ten years of privatisation, BT invested
>almost GBP23 billion.
>
>> or more employment
>> opportunity.
>
>Employment is a means to an end, and should never be an end in itself,
>otherwise you end up with teams of people filling holes that have been
>dug by another team.
>
>> How much tax to BT Manage to dodge each year that they employees of a
>> nationalised BT would have paid in PAYE?
>
>Pardon?
>
>> > How many judgements, as a %age, go against BT?
>> Not very many I suspect. Please furnish me with the figure....
>
>Oh no you don't. You are alleging that Oftel is a BT puppet, so you
>should be able to provide some evidence for it, not recite a number of
>judgements that were either FOR BT, or, more likely, judgements that
>meant BT didn't have to pay to help competitors cherry pick the best
>customers.
>
>> :) Appeal to force instead of argument?
>
>I'm seeing no knowledge here. Feel free to show some.
>
>> > In a report published in 1995, it was demonstrated that 65% of the
>> > benefits of privatisation had been passed onto the consumer.
>> In a report published this year, BT are judged to be providing a
>> globally competitive internet access, and complying fully with
>> unbundling process...
>
>Indeed.
>
>> There are three types of lies: Lies, damn lies, and reports published
>> yesterday. I am roundly unimpressed.
>
>You mean reports you disagree with. Big deal.
>
>> > What lie?
>> That Demon internet are providing a flat rate access package, this was
>> said live on the news.
>> They aren't they are waiting for BT to roll out their flat rate fees
>> first.
>
>From the Press Release
>
>http://www.bt.com/World/mediacentre/releases/2000/nr66.htm
>
>"Using BT's Surftime, BT phone customers are able to dial any one of
>around 30 ISPs, including Freeserve and from this month Demon, with
>others joining all the time. We have over 200,000 registered Surftime
>customers already, proving that unmetered Internet access is entirely
>possible if you have a business model based in the real world.
>
>So Demon doesn't quite have FRA NOW, but will very soon. But the biggest
>ISP in the land DOES, as do 29+ others. And this is a barefaced lie is
>it?
>
>When I was a teenager, I read the Adrian Mole books and have always
>remembered one particular entry in the diary:-
>
>"My father complained about the cost of my new pyjamas, and said that
>when he was my age, he slept in an old coal sack. I thought this sounded
>dubious, so I called my Grandmother. She said that he slept in an old
>FLOUR sack. So, I now know my father is a pathological liar"
>
>I think you missed the point.
>
>> If the BT man had been telling the truth he would have said that the
>> only people currently offering flat rate access are NTL, who thankfully
>> don't require the copper local loop.
>
>The press release suggests otherwise.
>
>> > The same privatisation that took an annual subsidy of 200pounds per
>> > taxpayer and turned it into a 100pound surplus?
>> Hey people the GPO are making a loss, shall we sell them?
>
>1) British Telecom was seperated from the GPO way before privatisation.
>2) British Telecom was profitable, to the tune of about 800M pa.
>3) The combined nationalised industries cost every taxpayer 200pounds in
>subsidies.
>
>> But will service deteriorate?
>> No, we'll set up a watchdog, shall we sell them?
>
>And service has improved.
>
>In 1984, fewer than 20% of customers had a PSTN
>line installed in less than two weeks. In 1996, 97% of
>all PSTN lines were installed to the customer agreed
>date, with 89% within five working days. 95% of
>faults are cleared within four hours for businesses,
>and 80% within nine hours for residential.
>
>> Will they become a monopoly?
>> No, Shall we sell them?
>
>Are you joking? They already WERE a monopoly, and a legally protected one
>at that. The same act of parliament the set the ground for the
>Privatisation of BT also allowed Barclays and C&W & BP (or it might have
>been Shell) to form Mercury.
>
>> Will they make huge profits and refuse to pass them on to the public?
>> No, shall we sell them?
>
>They will make huge profits because no one could comprehend how
>inefficiently run they were as a division of the civil service.
>
>Benefits will be largely passed onto the customer by competition and by
>means of the RPI-X% formula. These, combined, effects reduced call costs
>in the first ten years by 59%.
>
>The public get a third of BT's profits by corporation tax. A third of
>those profits are re-invested. A third are dispersed to Shareholders as
>dividends, which pay for pensions and insurance schemes. Dividends to
>individuals are taxed at between 23 and 40%.
>
>> Will the go under in a few years taking all the money with them?
>> No, shall we sell them...
>
>Are you saying BT are going to go bankrupt?
>
>> That (dubious) success has been achieved at huge cost to the public.
>
>What huge cost?
>
>> A tiny number of people (most of whom are now living abroad for tax
>> purposes) have benefited from the effective asset stripping
>
>This is complete rubbish. The shares were parcelled out in small
>quantities to private investors, and the bulk were sold to pension firms.
>
>If a tiny number of people, now living abroad for tax reasons, made a
>killing, you should have no trouble in naming five! </Marc Living mode>
>
>> Thatcher and the mayfair set et al will be judged by history if it
>> isn't re-written by American Jews or there isn't a war or something.
>
>Blimey, so the jews are to blame, or might be to blame in the future? I
>think we are one step away from invoking godwins law. Go on, make my
>day.....
>
>> Any fool can sell something that is worth £50 for £25 and cover it up
>> for a few years by sacking people and selling buildings until
>> eventually the whole lot gets shut down.
>
>How does this relate to BT?
>
>(BT & NTL)
>
>> Which one of the two companies has the unlimited financial backing of
>> the largest company in the world?
>
>I presume you are talking about Microsoft's $500M investment in them? So
>what? There is no such thing as unlimited financial backing, and here MS
>are investing in, among other things, a tame client to host Windows based
>set-top boxes.
>
>> > Why could that be?
>> NTL are ready to go now.
>> They are probably waiting until BT roll out ADSL, then they'll land the
>> final blow. This is how American companies operate.
>
>American Companies wait until their Unique Selling Proposition is no
>longer unique before launching an assault? Really?
>
>> With no control over the local loop, and cable modem beating ADSL in
>> price and speed, BT will finally keel over.
>
>Does any finance analyst share this rather outlandish view, or are you
>getting a bit carried away?
>
>> > Erm, they were forced to stay out of the *broadcast* market, to give
>> the
>> > CC's an opportunity to recoup some of their investment in an
>> independant
>> > local loop. And then comes along the plan to unbundle the BT access
>> > network. So much for all that investment.
>>
>> Awwww. My heart bleeds...
>
>Are you following this? It's the cable co's who've been ripped off, and
>yes, I do feel sorry for them. They invested billions on building a
>competitive alternative, then find that they anybody will have the same
>facility by buying BT Copper at incremental cost. I'd be pissed off.
>
>> > > NTL are only in this position now because the government forced BT To
>> > > stay out of the cable market
>> > > (because I suppose it didn't think cable
>> > > so important at the time).
>> > Erm, no. It did know cable was important, otherwise why ban BT from
>> > Broadcast Services which would make it harded for the CC's to
>> > make their money back.
>> As I said, because they didn't know they were making a mistake.
>> Not only are they thieves, they're incompetence thieves.
>
>No. You are wrong. They did know it was important. And because they knew
>it was important, they knew that it was sufficient inventive to get the
>new cable entrants to build competitive networks. And to cement that
>incentive, they removed competition for broadcast services for 9 years to
>let them get on their feet. That was the theory, right or wrong. It
>wasn't oversight or a mistake that meant BT was forbidden from offering
>Broadcast Services. I don't know how much more plain I can make it.
>
>> Once again, where we could have been the envy of the world, we are
>> reduced to being the laughing stock.
>
>Yes, such a laughing stock that no other country has tried to privatise
>their national telephone company.
>
>regards
>
>David
>
--Doug.
Doug.
<bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>Robin <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote in message
>news:Yl2ZkQAP...@droom.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <Nadp5.600$NR3....@news1.cableinet.net>, Big Daddy
>> <bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>> >
>> >Paris <odes...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> >news:8o3ion$ts9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> >> In article <kDbp5.464$NR3....@news1.cableinet.net>,
>> >> "Big Daddy" <bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I thought that we talking about the 'Arrogant Sate Monopoly'
>> >> > that was the GPO.
>> >> > But if it was anything like their pluming at that time....Shite?
>> >>
>> >> Well, my answer would be, about the same as the GPO's system.
>> >> My point being that before it was privatised it was as good as anybody
>> >> elses system. Since privatisation it has declined to this point.
>> >> No ADSL whilst T1 connections are common in the states.
>> >> No flat rate, whilst they can't give it away in the states...
>> >> And so on..
>> >
>> >I am with Blueyonder (Telewest) Ł9.99 a month for unlimited surfing, 99%
>> >first time log on ,connection speed always around 53K, a few teething
>> >problems at first but for the last months now Purr..fect
>>
>> Is that at all times of the day and does that include the connection
>> charge of 4p?
>
>ISP, including unlimited 24 hour use of internet, and don't forget that most
>of TWs network is new fibre optics :o)
>> >
>> >The reason I have an almost pathological hatred of the GPO is that I had
>> >just moved into a new house, I had a telephone at my previous address,
>> >shortly after moving I learnt that my dad had terminal cancer so I needed
>to
>> >be on call... would they move me up the mandatory six months waiting
>> >list?... would they ****!
>> >Even when they eventually condescended to install my phone I wound up
>> >sharing a party line with the nosy old bat next door,
>> >I also have family members who worked for the old nationalised GPO and
>have
>> >therefore heard things at first hand,
>> >I don't blame ex employees for being angry at privatisation.... after all
>> >they had a cushy secure well paid job....and then they had to face up to
>> >the real world! :o)
>>
>> There was many things wrong with the old GPO but one thing they were
>> excellent about was technical training. Their apprentices *really* were
>> given first class training in electronics and telecommunications.
>
>Nationalised monopoly, the Arrogance factor and strong trade unionism was
>enough to make me realise that there must be better things I could be doing
>with my life!:o(
Absolute rubbish. Just because you palpably don't like Trades Unions
don't speak of things you know nothing about.
The whole system worked on offering bits and pieces here and there to
pensions and such like to union officers who couldn't believe their luck
when they were called to interviews and flattered and Bought by
enhanced promotion prospects..
The Interviewer always sat back to window, his face in shade.
The Interviewee always sat front to window, his face in light.
Those bosses weren't mugs. It was well-known that to "get on" on the
job you had to be Union Sec, or Chairman. These two posts were
always hotly contested at Union Meetings.
The bosses had it all their own way. Strikes were practically unknown.
And the reason was (Like the Nurses,) the men would never fight for
better pay or conditions.
It wasn't until Wilson became Prime minister that the men got a fairer
share of the millions the Government were making out of the Industry.
They filched the takings blatantly to, as an example, keep the miners
going down the pits four times a week.
>> When BT made most of them redundant they had no trouble finding
work
>> elsewhere.
>> --
>> Robin
>
>
--Doug.
Big Daddy
Doug. <D...@yarlside.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZcywgdAU...@yarlside.demon.co.uk...
> In article <MPG.14115dff5...@news.btinternet.com>,
> David J Rainey <david....@nopam.btinternet.com> writes
> >In article <8o2p4h$66$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, odes...@my-deja.com says...
> >> I aren't arguing that private industry is more profitable than
> >> national ones. We all know why.
> >
> >Yes, they are run on a commercial basis for the benefit of shareholders,
> >who maximise profits by providing a superior serivice.
>
> You've just got to be kidding. The funding for nationalised Industry
> came from the Chancellors Big Pot. That funding was governed by
> overall income. P/O Eng was vastly profitable, yet the dishing out was
> restricted for development,
> The reason privatisation worked is because the funding could be
> obtained without tax increases. --- which would then - as now
> immediately result in their asses being kicked out of Westminster by the
Come on Doug.. you of all people! coming out with statements like "the
Stingy public", we already work for over five months of the year just to pay
existing (mainly hidden) taxes, that's before we even get to see a penny
that we can call our own ... I hope you're not suggesting that we should be
paying more for the government to 'squander :o)
Doug.
Daddy <bigd...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>Doug. <D...@yarlside.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ZcywgdAU...@yarlside.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <MPG.14115dff5...@news.btinternet.com>,
>> David J Rainey <david....@nopam.btinternet.com> writes
>> >In article <8o2p4h$66$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, odes...@my-deja.com says...
>> >> I aren't arguing that private industry is more profitable than
>> >> national ones. We all know why.
>> >
>> >Yes, they are run on a commercial basis for the benefit of shareholders,
>> >who maximise profits by providing a superior serivice.
>>
>> You've just got to be kidding. The funding for nationalised Industry
>> came from the Chancellors Big Pot. That funding was governed by
>> overall income. P/O Eng was vastly profitable, yet the dishing out was
>> restricted for development,
>> The reason privatisation worked is because the funding could be
>> obtained without tax increases. --- which would then - as now
>> immediately result in their asses being kicked out of Westminster by the
>> who refused paying the real cost of operations.
>
>Come on Doug.. you of all people! coming out with statements like "the
>Stingy public", we already work for over five months of the year just to pay
>existing (mainly hidden) taxes, that's before we even get to see a penny
>that we can call our own ... I hope you're not suggesting that we should be
>paying more for the government to 'squander :o)
For fifty years you had coal at half-price.
You sit in a hospital bed and the nurses are ever so wonderful and
caring, such lovely young dears dedicated to healing you. My daughter
used to be a Sister District midwife. Many people are enjoying life
because she saved them in the early hours of the night's birthing.
The only car she could afford was a beat-up Beetle, which I maintained.
She was on a production line at St Marys, Manchester and I had to help
her with the rent for a two-roomed top flat where the windows sills
were above eye-level. she was forced to work 24 hours a day for four
days until she collapsed.
Every time the bitter question of Nurses pay arises what do those people
in those beds say in support?, Not a bloody dickie-bird!. Ask for
another penny for the Nurses and you are out of Office at the next
election. Stingy is far too soft a word. The word is tight-fisted and
greedy.
As I said there was only one Chancellor's Big Pot.
The reason why people had to wait for two years to get a phone installed
was due to two things. Though making comparatively vast profits, very
little was taken out of the Big Pot for P.O. Engineers equipment
development Most of it was filched to pay for other crippled industries.
Also, (for instance,) you can't decide to run 24 channel cables from
Faraday to Oban and thence across the ocean bed to Canada in five
minutes. Even Plessy's couldn't keep pace with the speed of all-round
development.
All those years of development were held back by recovering from the
war.
The advent of the cheap and reliable chip set Comms on to an
exponential curve upwards which was immediately exploited by Dear
Hilda. A dream come true!. All those men! All those troublesome
Unions wanting a decent living out of the vast profits!!
The Chip!! a gift from heaven!, tell them to get on their bikes and hoppit
down the road.
Doug.
--Doug.
Telegraph at This Is Helena Internationa
Paris <odes...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> First they hand over the entire network (and acompanying market) to
> some faceless mates of theirs, and set up some sham watchdog to employ
> their cousins as well.
> (Now you can argue all you want about the state of the GPO system at
> the time, but I'll just laugh.)
>
> Then we allow BT to acrew obcene profits due to the fall in price
> of technology and their total refusal to pass the benefits on to the
> customers..
>
Agreed this is obscene. It is because BT were left as a monopoly when
privatised --- it was done in exactly the worst possible way. Mainly
because the gvt of the time was too obsessed about ownership and didn't
think properly about the actual effects of a market in
telecommunications, but also becausem they were too interested in
handing over a monopoly for a song to their friends. What should have
happened was either:--
1. BT kept in the public sector (at least for the time being) but given
complete independence from gvt control and commercial freedom, with
private operators allowed to compete with it
or
2. BT broken up into competing companies and sold off with the gvt
attempting to *get a decent price for them*.
As Option 1 isn't possible now (as BT is already privatised), IMHO the
best thing to do now would be to break it up.
Not an inherent result of capitalism, only that of the 'crony
capitalism' practised by the Thatcher gvts.
> Now we sit back and let them defy the inefectual OFTEL and barefaced
> lie on national television about why and how they are doing it.
> On channel 4 news the other night some BT rep actually invoked the
name
> of DEMON as an ISP that are offering a flat rate service.
It is. I use it, I don't trust free ISPs, I think they get too clogged
up, and they tend to tie you to proprietary software.
--
Telegraph. Not the newspaper.
(with apologies to Paris)
Paris
Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
> You, of course.
You can't expect me to swallow this chattering class 'individuality
uber alles' stuff surely?
There is a group of people who are deliberately badly educated and
misinformed to
make them more pliant and taxable. You can use any technique you want
to conveniently
ignore them if it helps you sleep at night.
> I couldn't really give a monkeys what the Americans call it. I call it
> "reality".
I suppose there is room in the universe for your reality.
> >Of course classes and groups of people exist, that's why we have such
> >collective nouns as "Middle England" and "Landed Gentry".
>
> LoL. Somebody who actually believes in the reality of marketing
> stereotypes. Charles Saatchi will be very pleased.
I recon this is a cynical twist too far..
> >If a person pays PAYE, has bad teeth and a regional accent, chances
are
> >they're a member of the working (or increasingly non-working)
classes.
>
> How will they be paying PAYE if they aren't working?
I think *they* are saatchis' "underclass"..
> >I don't care how many ponies they keep, or what whacky things they do
> >with latex of a weekend.
>
> Of course you don't. People are complicated things. Much simpler to
> stick with the stereotypes: the world seems so much more
> straightforward that way.
Much simpler just to ignore the truth with a convenient fallacy than
to attempt to address a deep rooted problem..
> >> There wasn't much by the way of a middle class in feudal times. The
> >> nearest that came to a middle class would have been the merchants
and
> >> lower clergy.
>
> >The distinction is not as clear as it was.
> >Then as now, you can find 50% of the working classes who'll happilly
> >shoot the other 50% for a keema madras.
>
> Maybe in your neck of the woods. Around here though it has to be a
> vindaloo before guns are drawn:-)
:)
> >> And what is it you say is the definition of "working class" which
> >> distinguishes them from the "middle class"?
>
> >I suppose you want me to tell you that working class people have a P
> >tatooed on their upper thigh?
>
> It would be nice if you told me that: since I would then know for sure
> that you were taking the piss.
You're attempting to convince me that you can't group people with
similar
attributes for conceptual purposes, no matter now nebulously. And you
think
I'm having a laugh..
> >One group are given an education encouraging the payment of taxes and
> >working hard for a meager living. Slapped down whenever they raise
> >their expectations and beaten when they protest against increasingly
> >obscene laws. Then when they do what they have been told all their
life
> >and behave like good citizens they are loaded like the pack animals
> >they are with VAT so that the higher earning middle classes can have
> >their income tax reduced (you can't claim that back).
>
> >The other group is given a proper education and encouraged to claim
> >back the tax on their over priced petrol.
>
> I must have gone to the former type. I certainly don't remember my
> school ever giving advice on tax.
Nor me, but I'm fairly sure I should have been.
> >They then spend the rest of their lives denying that some people can
be
> >grouped together whilst simultaneosly branding whole swathes of the
> >poplulation anything from 'hooligan' to 'racist'.
>
> You are now talking about journos and pols.
These are middle class traits, and journos and pols are a subset
thereof.
> >This is due to the one underlying characteristic of their class:
> >Hypocrisy.
<snip>
> >Of course then we have to talk about lawyers and so on... :)
Seems to me that the judiciary and it's enterage are a pillar of the
state.
Side by side with the pols and journo's, keeping the BBC 'uniquely
funded' and
ensuring that white collar criminals get 12 month suspended sentances.
Wonder if Straw has an SP30 yet?
> You mean you distinguish between those who own capital (eg pensioners)
> and those who don't - like me:-(
>
> What have you got against pensioners?
They smell of wee sometimes.
> >No I distinctly said, those that don't pay PAYE.
>
> Which means that they aren't employed. If you *are* employed, you pay
> PAYE.
No, there is a difference between income tax (tax return, self
assesment, petty cash boxes
at 20 paces) and PAYE (We recon you owe us, ah just give us it all...)
The former are generally (we're all individuals..) petty bourgeois
(middle class in
modern translation). The latter are the people who pay all the tax in
this country.
Perhaps if the latter, just didn't pay any tax at all (I think Saatchi
is calling this one
'the black economy' [although brown subcontinental economy would be
closer]) the laws might
change?
> >Who is in charge of the national curriculum which would educate these
> >foolish notions out of the populace?
> Do you say that the things we have been discussing were taught before
> the national curriculum was put in place?
No. But I aren't the one who harks back to some mythical vicorian
pastoral idyl in
which entrepreneurial mill owners paid for education and built plush
hospitals...
There has always been social advancement, there is nothing in the past
but lessons to
be learned. This advancement would be fast but for all the erm,
momentum (effing capitalists) which
needs to be overcome..
> >> (b) when (usually the same) idiots stop complaining that "it isn't
> >> fair" that because they live in Yshire, they cannot get
some "service"
> >> which is offered in Xborough.
>
> >Because a monopoly created by "the guv'ment" is doing what monopolies
> >created by "the guv'ment" will do...
>
> Aha! You believe that there should be competition between LAs.
> Interesting thought.
Actually I was alluding to BT.
But yes competition between LA's would be fine by me.
> Poll 1: Good evening sir, I am from the Hampshire CC and our rates of
> council tax are very reasonable. Please join us.
>
> Poll 2: Take no notice of him. We at the Alternative Hampshire CC
> have much lower rates of council tax and, if you agree to join us, we
> will give you free air miles.
>
> Poll 3: Take no notice of either of them. We at NuHampshire CC not
> only promise to match the lowest rates offered (or double the
> difference back), we will also guarantee that your bins will be
> emptied into clean green dustcarts - so you will not only be saving
> money, you will also be helping the environment.
>
> By jove ... you may be onto something there:-)
Save for the fact that pol 4 would get elected on the promise of more
inner city parking space, then proceed to push through the LA equivilent
of the RIP or Criminal Justice bill safe in the knowledge that they
have a
mandate.. Hey that's democracy.
Oh, and they'd tell you that inner city parking is a two term job..
> >> If people are going to blame the central government for the
failings
> >> of local government, then central government is going to take the
> >> power commensurate with the responsibility which has been forced on
> >> them.
>
> >Both you and I know that central government needs 'attenuating', but
> >unfortunately they have built into the very system about which I am '
> >complaining that "it isn't fair" ' a little bit of wizardry that
keeps
> >the whole thing going.
>
> I agree that Whitehall has never had to be dragged kicking and
> screaming into granting itself more power.
Usually on the back of a trojan peer..
> >The only thing that will change the status quo is violent revolution
or
> >internal reform... Which do you favour?
>
> That depends.
Violent revolution for the executive, internal reform for the law?
> >> Likewise, if people want local autonomy, they have to accept that
> >> different localities will do things different ways. The problem is
> >> that people want to have their cake and eat it.
>
> >You mean you want us all to sit by idly while you get all the cake
and
> >we get nothing... cheers mate.
>
> That would be nice.
If only I thought that you didn't mean it...
> >Rest assured if we had autonomy, you'd be sharing your cake a lot
more
> >evenly than it is shared now.
>
> If you are all depending on my cake, I'm afraid that you are in for a
> big disappointment. You would do better to cook your own.
I'm depending on my bit of the cake, but you southerners seem to have
it.
Still, you won't have it for long, it'll get privatised, subsequently
bought by the Germans, dismantled and the cherries sold to the yanks..
Don't you remember how bad the old cake was Paris?
But wasn't that in the days before we could refine sugar?
Silence...
--
Paris. Not the City.
"There'll never be a nuclear war, there's too much real estate involved"
Frank Zappa.
Marc Living
>In article <vlaoqs0an8cc9nrt3...@4ax.com>,
> Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>
>> You, of course.
>
>You can't expect me to swallow this chattering class 'individuality
>uber alles' stuff surely?
You *are* joking, aren't you? The chattering classes can't see a
person without trying to pigeonhole him or her. They are obsessed with
class, race, gender, sexuality etc.
They love nothing more than to quote the opinions and fantasies of
people describing themselves as the "spokesmen" and "leaders" of "the
[insert group here] community" as if they were newsworthy.
>There is a group of people who are deliberately badly educated and
>misinformed to
>make them more pliant and taxable. You can use any technique you want
>to conveniently
>ignore them if it helps you sleep at night.
There are certainly those who are badly educated. We merely differ on
why.
>> I couldn't really give a monkeys what the Americans call it. I call it
>> "reality".
>I suppose there is room in the universe for your reality.
That's very big of you.
>> >Of course classes and groups of people exist, that's why we have such
>> >collective nouns as "Middle England" and "Landed Gentry".
>> LoL. Somebody who actually believes in the reality of marketing
>> stereotypes. Charles Saatchi will be very pleased.
>I recon this is a cynical twist too far..
>> >If a person pays PAYE, has bad teeth and a regional accent, chances
>are
>> >they're a member of the working (or increasingly non-working)
>classes.
>> How will they be paying PAYE if they aren't working?
>I think *they* are saatchis' "underclass"..
There you go. You *can* see through the marketing stereotypes. No all
you need to do is learn how to see through the political stereotypes.
>> >I don't care how many ponies they keep, or what whacky things they do
>> >with latex of a weekend.
>> Of course you don't. People are complicated things. Much simpler to
>> stick with the stereotypes: the world seems so much more
>> straightforward that way.
>Much simpler just to ignore the truth with a convenient fallacy than
>to attempt to address a deep rooted problem..
And what "deep rooted problem" is that?
<snip>
>> >> And what is it you say is the definition of "working class" which
>> >> distinguishes them from the "middle class"?
>> >I suppose you want me to tell you that working class people have a P
>> >tatooed on their upper thigh?
>> It would be nice if you told me that: since I would then know for sure
>> that you were taking the piss.
>You're attempting to convince me that you can't group people with
>similar
>attributes for conceptual purposes, no matter now nebulously. And you
>think
>I'm having a laugh..
You know full well that I'm not saying that - although you have
conveniently snipped that part of the exchange. Of course you can
group people for conceptual purposes: it is, for example, perfectly
possible to group people at Old Trafford with red scarves as "Man Utd
supporters".
What you cannot do is go on to conclude that this group identified as
"Man Utd supporters" necessarily have anything else in common apart
from supporting Man Utd.
<snip>
>> >They then spend the rest of their lives denying that some people can
>be
>> >grouped together whilst simultaneosly branding whole swathes of the
>> >poplulation anything from 'hooligan' to 'racist'.
>> You are now talking about journos and pols.
>These are middle class traits, and journos and pols are a subset
>thereof.
Ah yes ... I forgot. Everybody in the middle class is identical: and
has identical beliefs and interests. Such is the word of the Paris.
Blessed be the name of the Paris.
><snip>
>> >Of course then we have to talk about lawyers and so on... :)
>
>Seems to me that the judiciary and it's enterage are a pillar of the
>state.
A lot of strange things "seem to you".
>Side by side with the pols and journo's, keeping the BBC 'uniquely
>funded' and
>ensuring that white collar criminals get 12 month suspended sentances.
Which white collar criminals are those then?
>Wonder if Straw has an SP30 yet?
A what?
<snip>
>> >No I distinctly said, those that don't pay PAYE.
>> Which means that they aren't employed. If you *are* employed, you pay
>> PAYE.
>No, there is a difference between income tax (tax return, self
>assesment, petty cash boxes
>at 20 paces) and PAYE (We recon you owe us, ah just give us it all...)
Indeed there is. The latter are employed, the former are not.
>The former are generally (we're all individuals..) petty bourgeois
>(middle class in
>modern translation).
Indeed. People like builders, painters and decorators, plumbers,
electricians, taxi drivers, mini-cab operators and shopkeepers.
>The latter are the people who pay all the tax in
>this country.
Pretty much.
>Perhaps if the latter, just didn't pay any tax at all (I think Saatchi
>is calling this one
>'the black economy' [although brown subcontinental economy would be
>closer]) the laws might
>change?
There is no "perhaps" about it. They certainly do change if a loophole
arises which the bulk of the milch cows can take advantage of, or if a
large enough group is failing to pay (eg the witholding tax introduced
for building labourers).
>> >Who is in charge of the national curriculum which would educate these
>> >foolish notions out of the populace?
>> Do you say that the things we have been discussing were taught before
>> the national curriculum was put in place?
>No. But I aren't the one who harks back to some mythical vicorian
>pastoral idyl in
>which entrepreneurial mill owners paid for education and built plush
>hospitals...
>There has always been social advancement, there is nothing in the past
>but lessons to
>be learned. This advancement would be fast but for all the erm,
>momentum (effing capitalists) which
>needs to be overcome..
Nope. Can't make head nor tail of this.
>> >> (b) when (usually the same) idiots stop complaining that "it isn't
>> >> fair" that because they live in Yshire, they cannot get
>some "service"
>> >> which is offered in Xborough.
>> >Because a monopoly created by "the guv'ment" is doing what monopolies
>> >created by "the guv'ment" will do...
>> Aha! You believe that there should be competition between LAs.
>> Interesting thought.
>Actually I was alluding to BT.
Since we weren't actually talking about BT (or telephones), can I ask
why?
>But yes competition between LA's would be fine by me.
>> Poll 1: Good evening sir, I am from the Hampshire CC and our rates of
>> council tax are very reasonable. Please join us.
>> Poll 2: Take no notice of him. We at the Alternative Hampshire CC
>> have much lower rates of council tax and, if you agree to join us, we
>> will give you free air miles.
>> Poll 3: Take no notice of either of them. We at NuHampshire CC not
>> only promise to match the lowest rates offered (or double the
>> difference back), we will also guarantee that your bins will be
>> emptied into clean green dustcarts - so you will not only be saving
>> money, you will also be helping the environment.
>> By jove ... you may be onto something there:-)
>Save for the fact that pol 4 would get elected on the promise of more
>inner city parking space, then proceed to push through the LA equivilent
>of the RIP or Criminal Justice bill safe in the knowledge that they
>have a
>mandate.. Hey that's democracy.
>Oh, and they'd tell you that inner city parking is a two term job..
Tis true-(
>> >> If people are going to blame the central government for the
>failings
>> >> of local government, then central government is going to take the
>> >> power commensurate with the responsibility which has been forced on
>> >> them.
>> >Both you and I know that central government needs 'attenuating', but
>> >unfortunately they have built into the very system about which I am '
>> >complaining that "it isn't fair" ' a little bit of wizardry that
>keeps
>> >the whole thing going.
>> I agree that Whitehall has never had to be dragged kicking and
>> screaming into granting itself more power.
>Usually on the back of a trojan peer..
A what?
>> >The only thing that will change the status quo is violent revolution
>or
>> >internal reform... Which do you favour?
>> That depends.
>Violent revolution for the executive, internal reform for the law?
That would certainly be better than the other way around:-)
>> >> Likewise, if people want local autonomy, they have to accept that
>> >> different localities will do things different ways. The problem is
>> >> that people want to have their cake and eat it.
>> >You mean you want us all to sit by idly while you get all the cake
>and
>> >we get nothing... cheers mate.
>> That would be nice.
>If only I thought that you didn't mean it...
Of course I mean it. Which reminds me ... I haven't received your cake
yet. Have you sent it?