Perhaps in things like telecommunications[I would hate to think I was still stuck with the Post Office for my telephone] the increased competition has been beneficial; in essential services such as electricity, gas and water it definitely has not - higher prices, especially for the poorest on 'card meters' who actually pay more per unit than the rich.
And don't even mention trains.
(And don't even mention trains.
Uzbek Lobster http://custardsurgery.com/azerbaijan,
Sun 10 Apr 2005, 18:10,
archived)
The trains(mentions trains) are hampered by rules designed to create competition where there shouldn't be any competition. That kind of thing really irritates me. "Ooh, these people all offer the same service, and by rights there should only be one company offering it, but that would be a monopoly and we know monopolies are bad, don't we children, so let's force them to work seperately and then they'll lower their prices, just like competition in the real world."
Trains compete against other transport services, in reality. Possibly this means there shouldn't be any trains, or possibly if there was only one train company (or two) it would be a success. But making a pretence of a competetive market where there's no reason for one is just naive.
(,
Sun 10 Apr 2005, 18:14,
archived)
Trains compete against other transport services, in reality. Possibly this means there shouldn't be any trains, or possibly if there was only one train company (or two) it would be a success. But making a pretence of a competetive market where there's no reason for one is just naive.
Yikes! *hides*told you not to mention them
( Uzbek Lobster http://custardsurgery.com/azerbaijan,
Sun 10 Apr 2005, 18:15,
archived)