| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 53280 | 2005-01-13 00:47:00 | Are you happy with the Telecom situation? | hamstar (4) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 313421 | 2005-01-13 00:47:00 | Are you happy with Telecom owning all the phone lines and charging extraneous rate for phone and internet? Sabotaging competitors phone lines? So called wholesale lines that are dwindled by plans Telecom opens just months after... |
hamstar (4) | ||
| 313422 | 2005-01-13 00:54:00 | You might want to rephrase your query to avoid a flame war :) | Murray P (44) | ||
| 313423 | 2005-01-13 01:01:00 | I'm perfectly happy. I see absolutely no reason why Telecom should be forced to let others use their lines because of government regulation or otherwise. They are the ones that have spent their money improving their infrastructure since they became a privatized company. If the government don't like telecom being big they should not have privatized the phone system in the first place. I also see no reason why telecom should not provide their consumer customers with better service/connection than they provide to companies through the UBS. It's their system, why should they be forced to let others use it? If I own hundreds of expensive cars should I be forced to let other people drive them? I think not! |
karter16 (6838) | ||
| 313424 | 2005-01-13 01:13:00 | If you decide to follow Murrays advice, while you are about it reword the question . Extraneous means "outside" or "foreign" as in extraneous matter contaminating something, while I assume you meant exorbitant, as in "grossly excessive" . Sabotage (wanton damage to or destruction of) isn't quite what you meant either I suspect as there is no evidence or suggestion either that Telecom goes around ripping out competitors' installations . It kinda ruins your poll to have mixed meanings like that . Polls should be used to gain meaningful information, not to stir up a chorus of me-too's from like minded individuals, so you should have some options other than the three offered . There are shades of opinion outside of those extremes . With a little more thought, you might get a more balanced and useful response . Cheers Billy 8-{) :2cents: |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 313425 | 2005-01-13 01:15:00 | oh my bad... that should be, exhorbitant then... * hamstar puts on flameproof suit |
hamstar (4) | ||
| 313426 | 2005-01-13 02:51:00 | I'm perfectly happy . I see absolutely no reason why Telecom should be forced to let others use their lines because of government regulation or otherwise . They are the ones that have spent their money improving their infrastructure since they became a privatized company . If the government don't like telecom being big they should not have privatized the phone system in the first place . I also see no reason why telecom should not provide their consumer customers with better service/connection than they provide to companies through the UBS . It's their system, why should they be forced to let others use it? If I own hundreds of expensive cars should I be forced to let other people drive them? I think not! You must remember the new owners of telecom when it was sold bought it CHEAP :horrified Part of this was because of hte upgrading needed, but more so they had to operate under regulation (eg Kiwi Share) . If they want to "milk" the consumer for more, let them, but first the owners should pay an extra $8 billion (taking an extra $2 billion on the purchase price in 1987 & adding what interest we could have saved from using that money to pay off Government Debt etc (17 yrs @ average 8 . 4%) If Telecom does that, then i will pay 1 cent more to them :thumbs: |
MartynC (5610) | ||
| 313427 | 2005-01-13 03:32:00 | You must remember the new owners of telecom when it was sold bought it CHEAP :horrified Part of this was because of hte upgrading needed, but more so they had to operate under regulation (eg Kiwi Share) . If they want to "milk" the consumer for more, let them, but first the owners should pay an extra $8 billion (taking an extra $2 billion on the purchase price in 1987 & adding what interest we could have saved from using that money to pay off Government Debt etc (17 yrs @ average 8 . 4%) If Telecom does that, then i will pay 1 cent more to them :thumbs: So when is a sale a sale . If I sold my business at a *bargain* and the new owners spent money and upgraded equipment, marketed it better, expanded client base and quadrupled profits what right would I have to go to them and say I want more? I am lost on your logic here . |
sam m (517) | ||
| 313428 | 2005-01-13 03:36:00 | But let's remember that it is Telecom's hard work that has make it worth the extra $8 billion . their hard work has made the company more valuable . Just like if I buy an old car for $5000, repair it and clean it up and it is then worth $25000 . I shouldn't have to give the seller another $20000 . The government were happy with the price they got at the time, they might regret it now, but they can't claim compensation for their decision 17 years ago . . . |
karter16 (6838) | ||
| 313429 | 2005-01-13 03:37:00 | heh Sam, you beat me to it :) |
karter16 (6838) | ||
| 313430 | 2005-01-13 04:07:00 | The government were happy with the price they got at the time, they might regret it now, but they can't claim compensation for their decision 17 years ago... You're forgetting something that is pertinent to the matter. It was a National government that sold off the PSTN and the post office. Those were, in my opinion, bad decisions, and we now (literally) pay the price for the carelessness of previous governments. |
agent (30) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||