On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:14:56 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Badger" wrote in message
...

snip

And until someone comes up with a 'value add' that gets a big buy in to
finance it it will continue to be by slow copper with the accountants
wringing the last pennies of profit from it. The cost of fibre to the
home is x2 too expensive at the moment, and has been so for some time.
The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening....Any ideas a what might trigger it?


Taking telecom's back into public ownership and then funding it from
taxation.

Oh good grief. What utter communist bull****.



The fact is, this country would never have had a national telecom's service
if it had been left to the 'venture capalists' of the day, at best large
towns or cities would have been invested in (like Hull was) and there would
have been the railways own telecom's system.


If you look at the former state run telcos across Europe, they fall
into several bands.

- Those who were privatised completely early on such as BT have been
the most successful in the market.

- Those who were privatised later, but where the government retained
share control (i.e. arms length influence) have done reasonably well
but mostly on a regional or national basis only

- Those who were privatised late and have struggled as a result, even
in their home market.

The reason is startlingly obvious. Governments do not run businesses
well.

Even the former large communist states have privatised telecoms, so
only a total idiot would suggest a reversal into state ownership.

Only the diehards like North Korea and Cuba promote this nonsense and
they are hardly shining examples of anything.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl