tombre@weissenburger.crin.fr (Karl Tombre) (07/01/89)
This discussion has quickly evolved into a discussion about models of society. All the technical reasons for the pricing practices here on Eunet have been given now, I think. Basically, we can say that the problem comes from monopolies and high telecom pricings. Now, a lot of people (especially from the USA) have condemned these monoplies over here in Europe and praised free competition. BUT I think there is a choice of the model of society you wish which lies behind all that. You probably are right that free competition among several companies would lower prices ***** for big telecom users *****. Sure it will. But remember the situation over here is not a private company having a monopoly, but a PUBLIC SERVICE run by the government. For instance, if I don't make a mistake, every French citizen pays the same fee for getting connected to the phone network: if you live in the midst of a city or out in the wilderness, several kilometers from the nearest phone line, you just pay THE SAME, and the telecoms set up the connection line to your house. Alas, nothing is perfect, and this is not the case with electrical power lines (you must pay a share if a new line is to be set up). Take also postal service. Would a private postal company let you pay just the same for one letter if you are a big company sending tons of mail or if you are a farmer in a remote place sending ONE letter per month ??? Sure it won't. But a state-run postal services delivers mail FOR THE SAME PRICE to all citizens, regardless how much the send/receive and where they live !!!! Doesn't it occur to anybody that this could also be seen as a good thing ??? Now a public service must also be run without too much loss (or let us say at least that globally a country should be run without deficit - any comments, US citizens over there ? -;). That means that the big users probably pay more than their share to support the small users. That also means that the public service should have a more or less complete monopoly... if all the big users go to the private companies, the public service can't continue only with the small users... I for one don't feel uncomfortable about that. Should it be considered as the perfect model to have the capitalistic view that you are FREE... to starve to death if you have no money for buying food, whereas others are free to exploit the neighbour as much as they can ? Isn't it a RIGHT of EVERY human being to LIVE, for instance ? I won't say that any model is perfect, or that the pricing policies of our European telecom companies can't be improved. But I see nothing basically wrong in the fact that some benefits from one public service can be used for paying another public service, such as free AND EQUAL health care to all, for instance. I certainly prefer the health system in our countries than that in the USA, where basically you can get the best doctor and the best care if you can afford it, and you only get minimal service if you are poor. On this net, most of us may be among the more affluent part of the population, but I for one like the fact that here in France everyone is equal (well, hmmm, let's say more equal than in the US... nothing is perfect ;-) with respect to health care. Of course, others may hold a different view on that matter; that's their right. But let us remember that the present discussion has no sense if it isn't seen in the global context : the model of society in most European countries is different from the American one (one exception seems to be Thatcher who at any price wants to apply Reaganomics to the British economy... poor British citizens ;-). No model is perfect, and you can like one better than the other. But as our European countries as well as the USA are democracies, the model of society can be said to be a choice of the people in each country (all this relatively of course...) and should be respected as such. --- Karl Tombre @ CRIN / INRIA Lorraine EMAIL : tombre@loria.crin.fr - POST : BP 239, 54506 VANDOEUVRE CEDEX, France
irf@kuling.UUCP (Bo Thide') (07/01/89)
In article <60@loria.crin.fr> tombre@weissenburger.crin.fr (Karl Tombre) writes: >This discussion has quickly evolved into a discussion about models of society. >All the technical reasons for the pricing practices here on Eunet have >been given now, I think. Basically, we can say that the problem comes >from monopolies and high telecom pricings. Now, a lot of people >(especially from the USA) have condemned these monoplies over here in >Europe and praised free competition. BUT I think there is a choice of >the model of society you wish which lies behind all that. In the ongoing discussion I think it is important not to compare Europe (a very heterogeneous group of nations with different political systems etc) to the USA. For instance, Sweden has among the lowest phone rates in the world. At the same time Sweden has more phones per capita than any other country and has phone communications digitized to 99%. By comparing with friends that live in West Germany (where the number of phones is much lower and where digitization has just started) but otherwise have similar phone habits as myself, I have noticed that pay typically 3-4 times as much per month as I do. Sweden has a state-owned phone company that operates as an ordinary private company but where Swewdish Parliament very often has a final say on the minimum level of service and maximum charges for the customers -- the phone users. Interestingly enough, Swedish Telecom is now rapidly abandoning more and more of its monopoly status allowing other companies to operate things like mobile telephone services (a *very* big thing over here) and to sell phone equipment etc. One thing that happened with this change of policy was that the price for installing a telephone in your summer house was brought up to "market level" -- an increase by several THOUSANDS of percent in many cases compared to the earlier rather low fixed rate of about $50-$100. However, in certain other aspects I think we will gain from this less rigid monopoly. Regarding e-mail, this is a service that is free of all user and other charges for anybody working in universities (which are all heavily subsidised by tax money). The University even pays my extra private phone line I have installed at home exculsively for modem connections to any computer I like. -Bo
fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home) (07/03/89)
In article <60@loria.crin.fr> tombre@weissenburger.crin.fr (Karl Tombre) writes: >This discussion has quickly evolved into a discussion about models of society. And you're right. [long discussion about how monopolies are good because they service every user equally] >You probably are right that free competition among several companies >would lower prices ***** for big telecom users *****. Sure it will. Let's talk some specifics. The USPS (postal service here) is having a hell of a time trying to get to compete with all manner of services. The have lost practically all of the package mailing business to UPS. Fed Ex. took a lot of mail that was urgent and couldn't be delivered as fast by the USPS. Then they tried their own over night service. Then they keep cutting the rates. They can't compete in an open market. We hear all the stories too about how if they were to lose first class mail the poor guy in xyz farmtown wouldn't get his mail. Hmm. UPS will deliver anywhere. So will many other over night services. Kills that argument. It takes 5 days to mail a letter to the same guy today. The monopoly is THAT efficient. A private service would probably fax the letter to a drop off site, call the recipient and let him pick it up the same day. If there were no USPS. No, your arguments for monopoly will never fly. China and Russia have the world's greatest monopolies. Look how well they function. Which way are they heading now? >That also means that the public service should have a more or less >complete monopoly... if all the big users go to the private companies, >the public service can't continue only with the small users... I >for one don't feel uncomfortable about that. Should it be considered >as the perfect model to have the capitalistic view that you are >FREE... to starve to death if you have no money for buying food, >whereas others are free to exploit the neighbour as much as they can ? >Isn't it a RIGHT of EVERY human being to LIVE, for instance ? The right of a free society has, as its ultimate freedom, the right to be different. Legislated equality means nothing. If we can't have the freedom to be rich or poor we have no freedom. Whether a human being has a right to live depends on whether he can be a contributing member of society. Those who can not by reason of some infirmity become wards of that society. But I don't think that we (society) owe anything to those who are nothing but leeches and contribute nothing to the welfare of the whole. But that is heavy talk. In general, one must realize that the world is turning more toward private initiative and conservative political philosophy. Everywhere, even in socialist Northern Europe, the winds of change are howling. In order to compete in a free society anything that restricts such competition will ultimately backfire on those who hold out for monopolies of any kind. >I certainly prefer the health system >in our countries than that in the USA, where basically you can get the >best doctor and the best care if you can afford it, and you only get >minimal service if you are poor. [It's still better then anywhere else though, isn't it?:)] But yes, it tends to go that way. It's the same with cars, houses, lawyers, computers etc That's why some of us work our little butts off so we can get all those things. It's the nature of the beast. But it is also why there are more new jobs created by small business in the USA then anywhere else in the world. It's kept this place hopping for the last 200 years. We took all the best and hardest workers from everywhere else and turned them lose so they could become millionaires. The system works. >I for one like the fact >that here in France everyone is equal (well, hmmm, let's say more >equal than in the US... nothing is perfect ;-) with respect to health care. Yes, we heard of that. Liberty, Equality and off with their heads :) But please don't make me equal with everyone else. That's disgusting. Just give me the same rights as everyone else and I'll be fine. We could really get into a long discussion about HOW equal everyone is in France but we would need another forum for that. >Of course, others may hold a different view on that matter; that's >their right. Thank you. We appreciate that. >But let us remember that the present discussion has no >sense if it isn't seen in the global context : the model of society in >most European countries is different from the American one (one >exception seems to be Thatcher who at any price wants to apply >Reaganomics to the British economy... poor British citizens ;-). And for some strange reason she wants very little to do with a united European system. Could she be just a little afraid of all the subsidies she'd have to carry for all of the inefficiencies in your 'free' farming monopoly? >No model is perfect, and you can like one better than the other. But >as our European countries as well as the USA are democracies, the model of >society can be said to be a choice of the people in each country (all >this relatively of course...) and should be respected as such. Yes, but you should listen to us anyway:::))) Fred Rump -- This is my house. My castle will get started right after I finish with news. 26 Warren St. uucp: ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr Beverly, NJ 08010 domain: fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net 609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schiller
preacher@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (J.A. Fegan) (07/04/89)
From article <60@loria.crin.fr>, by tombre@weissenburger.crin.fr (Karl Tombre): > health care to all, for instance. I certainly prefer the health system > in our countries than that in the USA, where basically you can get the > best doctor and the best care if you can afford it, and you only get > minimal service if you are poor. On this net, most of us may be among Well Karl first off this is not a flame so as you can see it is not found in alt.flame. What I would like to say is that while in many places what you say *may* be true. Here where I live I can say it is not. In this country of high living and great wealth <grin> I am more than likely counted among the poor although not the extreme poor, still among the poor. I have a family of three (my wife, my son, and of course myself) and as for income I would have to place it somewhere around the 5000 PU (Purchasing Units) range. There is no way that I could afford the latest run in with the doctors. You see my son took some of his grandpa's heart medication as had to spend a week being poked and prodded till all was ok again. The people that have the worst time here in the States are not the rich or the poor, but the people in the middle class. By the way the local specialist for kids (pediatrician) came in that night at 2300 hours and stayed till 0545 after putting in a full day and having to put in a full day again. I just want to thank her again (although she will not read this) for all the time she put in on this case. I am glad there are still some folks love what they do and not just for the PU's. -- Never be backward wen visitors kum; | mailrus!sharkey!lopez!preacher Don't sit there quiet like a sap |-------------------------------- Be sociable! Tell'em wot momma called pa When she found the maid parked on his lap. -- Tha Return Uv Snowshoe Al