Bassman62 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 That's probably true but my point was about private companies in general and the fact they're out to make profit not keep the public happy (which they're certainly living up to!)This topic is about utilities which we the public owned and benefited from but maggie sold them cheap to finance tax cuts for her cronies. All the revenue since then has gone into the pockets of shareholders instead of the exchequer where it was the general public who benefited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 So its BTs fault that they were there first is it, why should that benefit parasite companys who want to ride piggyback down BT plant, Mercury tried it, we were even forced by the high court to connect their lines in BT exchanges, they thought that they were in for a fast killing, where are they now? Fibre optic cables are the latest thing before that it was Coaxial cables for trunks. Why should BT allow other companys to use BT UG tracks and poles, sending their engineers up poles without proper training. BT didn't even exist when the phone lines & exchanges were built. They were a public sector monopoly which was sold off & became a private monopoly. Since then, they've done what private monopolies do, rip people off & do what they can to make sure they remain a monopoly with the power to rip people off. Private enterprise is only the best solution for the country as a whole when there is competition. Private monopolies are the worst way to supply any good or service, they'll always rip people off as much as they possibly can, because there is no other option. In the case of BT, anybody wanting to try to compete with their own 'last mile' phone/communications infrastructure, nationally, could never hope to make a profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 This topic is about utilities which we the public owned and benefited from but maggie sold them cheap to finance tax cuts for her cronies. All the revenue since then has gone into the pockets of shareholders instead of the exchequer where it was the general public who benefited. Aren't the general public shareholders? - I seem to remember that when British Gas (or was it British Telecow?) were privatised, priority was given to small private investors. What did those investors do with their shares? Did they hang on to them and are they now recouping the benefits of their investment?- Or did they flog them off for a quick profit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Aren't the general public shareholders? - I seem to remember that when British Gas (or was it British Telecow?) were privatised, priority was given to small private investors. What did those investors do with their shares? Did they hang on to them and are they now recouping the benefits of their investment?- Or did they flog them off for a quick profit? That is totaly immaterial the utilities were undersold. Naturaly nobody is going to turn down a sweetener that they can sell on for a quick profit soon after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 BT didn't even exist when the phone lines & exchanges were built. They were a public sector monopoly which was sold off & became a private monopoly. Since then, they've done what private monopolies do, rip people off & do what they can to make sure they remain a monopoly with the power to rip people off. Private enterprise is only the best solution for the country as a whole when there is competition. Private monopolies are the worst way to supply any good or service, they'll always rip people off as much as they possibly can, because there is no other option. In the case of BT, anybody wanting to try to compete with their own 'last mile' phone/communications infrastructure, nationally, could never hope to make a profit. Nothing like quoting the obvious and proving the other person point, I know BT didn't exist in that name, I worked there through from GPO to BT an witnessed the changes. Regarding the last mile bit why should they parasite off of another companys back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 It was, with the profits going to the exchequer along with profits from the other utilities that we owned that's why it was snapped up. Do you have any up to date figures which show the payment to the exchequer both before and after privatisation? this is interesting but it's 16 year old data.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.