In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I think we already know the answer to that question. People in
outlying areas would pay the true economic cost of the service.

That attitude is far reaching. Do you expect to pay more for electricity
the further you are from the generator? Etc.

A country *has* to be run on the basis that essential services are
reasonably uniform throughout. Anything else would bring chaos. Of course
that doesn't stop big business trying to cherry pick the bits they want
purely for profit.

--
*Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2007-05-04 09:24:14 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I think we already know the answer to that question. People in
outlying areas would pay the true economic cost of the service.

That attitude is far reaching. Do you expect to pay more for electricity
the further you are from the generator? Etc.

Possibly.


A country *has* to be run on the basis that essential services are
reasonably uniform throughout.

The question then is what counts as essential. Postal service doesn't
really fall into that category, especially when there are much more
viable alternatives. If mail is delivered electronically, it can be
read when the recipient is anywhere in the world - far more useful.


Anything else would bring chaos.

I don't see why.


Of course
that doesn't stop big business trying to cherry pick the bits they want
purely for profit.

Nothing wrong with that. It's the best indication of what people
really want. If they are willing to pay, they really do. If they
are not willing to pay then one has to ask whether it is worth doing.

On Fri, 4 May 2007 12:07:33 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
The question then is what counts as essential. Postal service doesn't
really fall into that category, especially when there are much more
viable alternatives. If mail is delivered electronically, it can be
read when the recipient is anywhere in the world - far more useful.

Yes, but following your line of argument, people in outlying rural areas
wouldn't get phone lines or broadband either. Not at an affordable price
anyway.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The question then is what counts as essential. Postal service doesn't
really fall into that category, especially when there are much more
viable alternatives. If mail is delivered electronically, it can be
read when the recipient is anywhere in the world - far more useful.

You're assuming everyone has a computer and or can use one. This simply
isn't so.

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I think we already know the answer to that question. People in
outlying areas would pay the true economic cost of the service.

That attitude is far reaching. Do you expect to pay more for electricity
the further you are from the generator? Etc.

A country *has* to be run on the basis that essential services are
reasonably uniform throughout. Anything else would bring chaos. Of course
that doesn't stop big business trying to cherry pick the bits they want
purely for profit.

--

Dave Plowman London SW

This 'uniformity of _price_' was the major methodology extant during the
post-war period until the sixties.
Everything was regulated by the state, I recall the BBC solemnly leading the
Six O'Clock News with the announcement that a loaf of bread would now cost
one-shilling!'. Retail Price Maintenance dictated that a packet of
Cornflakes would cost the same in Central London and the most northerly
grocery shop in the most northerly (inhabited) island (Unst) in the United
Kingdom. Was it reasonable for the housewife in Central London to pay
exactly the same price for her cornflakes as her counterpart in Baltasound?
Nowadays, Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda, Lidl , Waitrose .... all _compete_ for our
business- sometimes with lower prices.

BTW; I pay exactly the same rate for electricity (I can choose my supplier)
whether or not it's sourced from the Gas-fired Generator I can see from my
window or the nuclear powered station at Dounreay or the Welsh water at
Drynygg. The supplier decides to purchase Electricity form the Generators
and it's up to him how he delivers it to my meter. Your; 'Do you expect to
pay more for electricity the further you are from the generator? " is a
false question dependant on a false assumption.

--

Brian

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-05-03 20:54:30 +0100, Graeme said:

Of course it doesn't make sense, but that is hardly Royal Mail's
fault - their contact stipulates that they (RM) have to deliver mail
anywhere, at the same price. The same stipulation does not apply to
private contractors/couriers. What is needed is a level playing field
- then see who copes and who fails.

I think we already know the answer to that question. People in
outlying areas would pay the true economic cost of the service.

Indeed - but they don't. We are discussing the real world here, not
some form of Utopia. Royal Mail have to operate in the real world, and
therefore have to deliver anywhere, for the same price. Fact.

Andy, you are absolutely correct, but again, that is hardly the
point. RM deliver whatever they are paid to deliver. RM are not in
place to censor anyone's mail, and quietly remove the boring or
unnecessary stuff. Sometimes I wish they would :-)

Which is a very good reason for escalating the pricing to a
commercially viable level.

Yes indeed - and whilst that would doubtless reduce junk or unnecessary
mail, particularly to remote areas, it would also penalise every Granny
and Auntie who wanted to send a card to a remote relative.

Going off on a tangent, there are two problems. Firstly, the spread
of computerisation over the last twenty or so years, which we were
assured would lead to the paperless office, has created the exact
opposite. People now want hard copies of everything.

They do? I don't know of anybody. In fact I tend to avoid
organisations that generate it.

That is due to the rarefied circles in which you move. You already
know, I think, that I'm a sub postmaster, and therefore mix with a broad
spectrum of people on a daily basis. Believe me, there are vast armies
of everyday people who could not survive without written documentation.
Well, those that can read, anyway. Your argument also assumes that
everyone has, or has access to, a computer. Whilst that is becoming
true, there are, once again, armies of people who have never used a
computer, and never want to. The system will not change until everyone
has easy access to a computer, and is happy to use one.

Second problem is that Joe Public *likes* everything in black and
white. The vast majority of people want a hard copy bill, or
statement, whether or not identical information is available in an
electronic format. People like to file these things away, for
whatever reason.

Then it should cost them an economic price.

Fair enough, but switching everyone to electronic bills and statements
does not save money - it merely moves it. Someone, somewhere will have
to ensure that all these people have a computer, and the skill to use
it.

I file my returns via the web, but still receive what feels like
vast amounts of bumph by post.

I get the accountant to do that - he can do it whichever way he likes,
I don't really care.

My accountant files my returns, but the Revenue still post paper to me -
probably copies to my accountant, too. Helps keep Royal Mail in
business :-)

- Junk mail
You will see more of that in the future.

Which is another reason for increasing the prices.

There is only a finite amount of money available (discounting socialist
governments, who just print more), and any extra spent on postage will
be charged to the consumer, one way or another.
--
Graeme

On 2007-05-04 13:41:20 +0100, Tony Bryer said:

On Fri, 4 May 2007 12:07:33 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
The question then is what counts as essential. Postal service doesn't
really fall into that category, especially when there are much more
viable alternatives. If mail is delivered electronically, it can be
read when the recipient is anywhere in the world - far more useful.

Yes, but following your line of argument, people in outlying rural areas
wouldn't get phone lines or broadband either. Not at an affordable price
anyway.

There are even ways to achieve that using wireless, especially where
population densities are small. For example, the Swedes have managed
it right up in the very north of the country where population density
is quite low and home working is encouraged. They've had mobile phone
coverage up there for many years.

On 2007-05-04 13:58:01 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The question then is what counts as essential. Postal service doesn't
really fall into that category, especially when there are much more
viable alternatives. If mail is delivered electronically, it can be
read when the recipient is anywhere in the world - far more useful.

You're assuming everyone has a computer and or can use one. This simply
isn't so.

Then people are going to need to learn. They have managed to use
motor cars and to get onto buses and into trains as opposed to
requiring horses and carts after all.

On 2007-05-04 14:59:24 +0100, Graeme said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-05-03 20:54:30 +0100, Graeme said:

Of course it doesn't make sense, but that is hardly Royal Mail's fault
- their contact stipulates that they (RM) have to deliver mail
anywhere, at the same price. The same stipulation does not apply to
private contractors/couriers. What is needed is a level playing field
- then see who copes and who fails.

I think we already know the answer to that question. People in
outlying areas would pay the true economic cost of the service.

Indeed - but they don't. We are discussing the real world here, not
some form of Utopia. Royal Mail have to operate in the real world, and
therefore have to deliver anywhere, for the same price. Fact.

No it isn't. This is not a service that is absolutely required. That
is the real world. There are other much better ways to do it. Utopia
is hankering after something that is decades past its sell-by date -
doing things in a given way because we always have.




Andy, you are absolutely correct, but again, that is hardly the point.
RM deliver whatever they are paid to deliver. RM are not in place to
censor anyone's mail, and quietly remove the boring or unnecessary
stuff. Sometimes I wish they would :-)

Which is a very good reason for escalating the pricing to a
commercially viable level.

Yes indeed - and whilst that would doubtless reduce junk or unnecessary
mail, particularly to remote areas, it would also penalise every Granny
and Auntie who wanted to send a card to a remote relative.

So base it on weight and size. Besides..... Granny and Auntie can
just as easily send an email.



Going off on a tangent, there are two problems. Firstly, the spread
of computerisation over the last twenty or so years, which we were
assured would lead to the paperless office, has created the exact
opposite. People now want hard copies of everything.

They do? I don't know of anybody. In fact I tend to avoid
organisations that generate it.

That is due to the rarefied circles in which you move.

Not really.

You already know, I think, that I'm a sub postmaster, and therefore
mix with a broad spectrum of people on a daily basis. Believe me,
there are vast armies of everyday people who could not survive without
written documentation.

The real situation is that they can't be bothered to look and something
else because it hasn't been organised for them.


Well, those that can read, anyway. Your argument also assumes that
everyone has, or has access to, a computer. Whilst that is becoming
true, there are, once again, armies of people who have never used a
computer, and never want to.

That's their choice. It's not a necessity. Why does some archaic
service have to be provided just to cater for the incapable. It is
perfectly possible for almost anybody to use something based on a
keyboard and screen as a source of information and communication.

For example, decades ago in France the Minitel terminal was introduced
and given to every telephone subscriber instead of printed directories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel

This was enormously successful and people did not have difficulty using
it - even old grannies.

The system will not change until everyone has easy access to a
computer, and is happy to use one.

That's a crock of an excuse.

One might as well say that public transport should run with horse
pulled carts because people don't like the idea of getting into buses.



Second problem is that Joe Public *likes* everything in black and
white. The vast majority of people want a hard copy bill, or statement,
whether or not identical information is available in an electronic
format. People like to file these things away, for whatever reason.

Then it should cost them an economic price.

Fair enough, but switching everyone to electronic bills and statements
does not save money - it merely moves it.

People who insist on paper bills should pay more - that's perfectly reasonable

Someone, somewhere will have to ensure that all these people have a
computer, and the skill to use it.

They can do it themselves. Why the notion exists that someone has to
take responsibility for making sure people have a computer, I am
amazed. They managed to buy TV sets without any difficulty.



I file my returns via the web, but still receive what feels like vast
amounts of bumph by post.

I get the accountant to do that - he can do it whichever way he likes,
I don't really care.

My accountant files my returns, but the Revenue still post paper to me
- probably copies to my accountant, too. Helps keep Royal Mail in
business :-)

I managed to stop them doing that.



- Junk mail
You will see more of that in the future.

Which is another reason for increasing the prices.

There is only a finite amount of money available (discounting socialist
governments, who just print more), and any extra spent on postage will
be charged to the consumer, one way or another.

Which is all the more reason for it to become unattractive to the marketeers.

On Fri, 4 May 2007 15:53:15 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-04 13:58:01 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The question then is what counts as essential. Postal service doesn't
really fall into that category, especially when there are much more
viable alternatives. If mail is delivered electronically, it can be
read when the recipient is anywhere in the world - far more useful.

You're assuming everyone has a computer and or can use one. This simply
isn't so.

Then people are going to need to learn.

My mum's 93 years old. Should she be expected to learn how to use a
computer?

They have managed to use motor cars and to get onto buses and into trains as opposed to
requiring horses and carts after all.

She was quite a bit younger when she mastered that!

--
Frank Erskine

On 2007-05-04 16:09:19 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Fri, 4 May 2007 15:53:15 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-05-04 13:58:01 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The question then is what counts as essential. Postal service doesn't
really fall into that category, especially when there are much more
viable alternatives. If mail is delivered electronically, it can be
read when the recipient is anywhere in the world - far more useful.

You're assuming everyone has a computer and or can use one. This simply
isn't so.

Then people are going to need to learn.

My mum's 93 years old. Should she be expected to learn how to use a
computer?

My father is almost that old. He has.



They have managed to use motor cars and to get onto buses and into
trains as opposed to
requiring horses and carts after all.

She was quite a bit younger when she mastered that!

It's part of the conveyor belt of life. If you think about it, there
aren't any technologies that have not been introduced or developed
(assuming that they are commercially viable) because a section of the
population couldn't use them. It's not an argument not to do them.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
You're assuming everyone has a computer and or can use one. This simply
isn't so.

Then people are going to need to learn. They have managed to use
motor cars and to get onto buses and into trains as opposed to
requiring horses and carts after all.

There's little difference between a horse drawn bus and a motorised one.
Not everyone can drive.

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-05-04 14:59:24 +0100, Graeme said:

We are discussing the real world here, not some form of Utopia. Royal
Mail have to operate in the real world, and therefore have to deliver
anywhere, for the same price. Fact.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

This is not a service that is absolutely required.

That is a completely different argument, and you know it. By law, RM
*must* deliver to every address, for the same price. Fact. Whether or
not it is required is beside the point.

Yes indeed - and whilst that would doubtless reduce junk or
unnecessary mail, particularly to remote areas, it would also
penalise every Granny and Auntie who wanted to send a card to a
remote relative.

So base it on weight and size. Besides..... Granny and Auntie can
just as easily send an email.

Granny cannot send an e-mail if Granny cannot use a computer, or the
recipient cannot.

Believe me, there are vast armies of everyday people who could not
survive without written documentation.

The real situation is that they can't be bothered to look and something
else because it hasn't been organised for them.

Quite possibly, but again, that is hardly the point.

Well, those that can read, anyway. Your argument also assumes that
everyone has, or has access to, a computer. Whilst that is becoming
true, there are, once again, armies of people who have never used a
computer, and never want to.

That's their choice. It's not a necessity. Why does some archaic
service have to be provided just to cater for the incapable. It is
perfectly possible for almost anybody to use something based on a
keyboard and screen as a source of information and communication.

Possible, perhaps yes, but realistic? No.

For example, decades ago in France the Minitel terminal was introduced
and given to every telephone subscriber instead of printed directories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel

This was enormously successful and people did not have difficulty using
it - even old grannies.

True - but using a directory was faster!

The system will not change until everyone has easy access to a
computer, and is happy to use one.

That's a crock of an excuse.

You are of my generation. You have grown up using computers, and are
happy to do so. Yes, there are many 'silver surfers' also happy, but
there are far more who just cannot grasp PINs and plastic cards, never
mind computers. Things will change, as older people die. Nothing
changes overnight.

One might as well say that public transport should run with horse
pulled carts because people don't like the idea of getting into buses.

Doubtless there were millions of people alive when buses were
introduced, and equally doubtless a great many of them went to their
graves never having used any form of motorised transport.

Fair enough, but switching everyone to electronic bills and
statements does not save money - it merely moves it.

People who insist on paper bills should pay more - that's perfectly reasonable

I don't doubt that will happen, in time.

Someone, somewhere will have to ensure that all these people have a
computer, and the skill to use it.

They can do it themselves. Why the notion exists that someone has to
take responsibility for making sure people have a computer, I am amazed.

I should have said have access to. Most people have access to, via a
public library, but that does not provide the skill or confidence to use
it.

They managed to buy TV sets without any difficulty.

I hardly think that using a television is comparable to using a
computer.

--
Graeme

On 2007-05-04 16:36:58 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
You're assuming everyone has a computer and or can use one. This simply
isn't so.

Then people are going to need to learn. They have managed to use
motor cars and to get onto buses and into trains as opposed to
requiring horses and carts after all.

There's little difference between a horse drawn bus and a motorised one.
Not everyone can drive.

Mmm....

But you've got to admit that London Transport don't have all that many
horse drawn buses in operation these days.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
There's little difference between a horse drawn bus and a motorised
one. Not everyone can drive.

Mmm....

But you've got to admit that London Transport don't have all that many
horse drawn buses in operation these days.

And? Postmen in rural areas don't drive Morris Minor vans anymore
either.

--
*I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2007-05-04 16:39:39 +0100, Graeme said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-05-04 14:59:24 +0100, Graeme said:

We are discussing the real world here, not some form of Utopia. Royal
Mail have to operate in the real world, and therefore have to deliver
anywhere, for the same price. Fact.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

No. They only "have" to do this because the law is the way that it
is. Laws can be changed or dumped entirely - they are a means to an
end, not a raison d'etre.



This is not a service that is absolutely required.

That is a completely different argument, and you know it. By law, RM
*must* deliver to every address, for the same price. Fact. Whether or
not it is required is beside the point.

It's exactly the point.



Yes indeed - and whilst that would doubtless reduce junk or unnecessary
mail, particularly to remote areas, it would also penalise every
Granny and Auntie who wanted to send a card to a remote relative.

So base it on weight and size. Besides..... Granny and Auntie can
just as easily send an email.

Granny cannot send an e-mail if Granny cannot use a computer, or the
recipient cannot.

Then Granny and the recipient should be disappointed. There aren't
carrier pigeon services or mail coaches to York any more either.



Believe me, there are vast armies of everyday people who could not
survive without written documentation.

The real situation is that they can't be bothered to look and something
else because it hasn't been organised for them.

Quite possibly, but again, that is hardly the point.

Again it's exactly the point.



Well, those that can read, anyway. Your argument also assumes that
everyone has, or has access to, a computer. Whilst that is becoming
true, there are, once again, armies of people who have never used a
computer, and never want to.

That's their choice. It's not a necessity. Why does some archaic
service have to be provided just to cater for the incapable. It is
perfectly possible for almost anybody to use something based on a
keyboard and screen as a source of information and communication.

Possible, perhaps yes, but realistic? No.

Completely realistic.

Consider another technology area. Mobile phones. Deployment of these
is growing at a far greater rate than fixed line. For most of the
world's population, they have or will make their first phone call on
one. text messaging is built in and easy to use.




For example, decades ago in France the Minitel terminal was introduced
and given to every telephone subscriber instead of printed directories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel

This was enormously successful and people did not have difficulty using
it - even old grannies.

True - but using a directory was faster!

Actually it was pretty good. I've used them a few times.


The system will not change until everyone has easy access to a
computer, and is happy to use one.

That's a crock of an excuse.

You are of my generation. You have grown up using computers, and are
happy to do so. Yes, there are many 'silver surfers' also happy, but
there are far more who just cannot grasp PINs and plastic cards, never
mind computers. Things will change, as older people die. Nothing
changes overnight.

It's going to change awfully quickly. Consider that before about 1990
the Internet was the preserve of those technically able to work out how
to use it and that wasn't easy. Now it's a plug and play thing with
"broadband" available to the masses.

Another 10-15 years and I think that paper based mail services will be
largely irrelevant. Put it this way. I might buy more stock in
Fedex. I sure as hell wouldn't buy any in Royal Mail.



One might as well say that public transport should run with horse
pulled carts because people don't like the idea of getting into buses.

Doubtless there were millions of people alive when buses were
introduced, and equally doubtless a great many of them went to their
graves never having used any form of motorised transport.

Of course. But nobody gave a second thought about introducing
motorised transport.



Fair enough, but switching everyone to electronic bills and statements
does not save money - it merely moves it.

People who insist on paper bills should pay more - that's perfectly reasonable

I don't doubt that will happen, in time.

Really rather quickly and the quicker the better.



Someone, somewhere will have to ensure that all these people have a
computer, and the skill to use it.

They can do it themselves. Why the notion exists that someone has to
take responsibility for making sure people have a computer, I am amazed.

I should have said have access to. Most people have access to, via a
public library, but that does not provide the skill or confidence to
use it.

Once again the mentality that there needs to be some kind of public
sector involvement in provisioning of this kind of thing. All the
time that there are these attempts to spoon feed people rather poorly,
they won't take responsibility for themselves. As soon as they have
to make their own arrangements, they will.





They managed to buy TV sets without any difficulty.

I hardly think that using a television is comparable to using a computer.

Both are sources of information, as is buying a newspaper or a
magazine. They inform and they entertain. There is absolutely no
reason why a computer is not the same other than in people's minds and
because there are people telling them that they can't do things.
They can.

On 2007-05-04 16:57:13 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
There's little difference between a horse drawn bus and a motorised
one. Not everyone can drive.

Mmm....

But you've got to admit that London Transport don't have all that many
horse drawn buses in operation these days.

And? Postmen in rural areas don't drive Morris Minor vans anymore
either.

or have cats called Jess......

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Postmen in rural areas don't drive Morris Minor vans anymore either.

Our postman does.

Andy Hall wrote:

And? Postmen in rural areas don't drive Morris Minor vans anymore
either.

or have cats called Jess......

Postman Pat drives a Hundy Atoz.

On 2007-05-04 17:25:16 +0100, (Steve Firth) said:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Postmen in rural areas don't drive Morris Minor vans anymore either.

Our postman does.

Ah.... bless......

On 2007-05-04 18:54:33 +0100, Tony Bryer said:

On Fri, 4 May 2007 17:24:33 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
Another 10-15 years and I think that paper based mail services will
be largely irrelevant. Put it this way. I might buy more stock in
Fedex. I sure as hell wouldn't buy any in Royal Mail.

Well, to name but two, Dell and Viking don't think sending out paper a
waste of time and outdated. They send me paper by the ream, presumably
because it is an more effective way of selling. ISTM that the amount of
'junk mail' is growing not declining.

Mmm...

Which is why I have stopped dealing with both firms and have told them why.

Plus I don't like the look of the guy on the front cover of the Viking
catalogue.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I think we already know the answer to that question. People in
outlying areas would pay the true economic cost of the service.

That attitude is far reaching. Do you expect to pay more for
electricity the further you are from the generator? Etc.

A country *has* to be run on the basis that essential services are
reasonably uniform throughout. Anything else would bring chaos. Of
course that doesn't stop big business trying to cherry pick the bits
they want purely for profit.

I've always wondered how come long distance telephone calls cost the
consumer more than local calls? And how come a letter sent from Lands End
to John O'Groats is the same price as sending one to the next street?


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-04 16:39:39 +0100, Graeme said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-05-04 14:59:24 +0100, Graeme said:

We are discussing the real world here, not some form of Utopia.
Royal Mail have to operate in the real world, and therefore have to
deliver anywhere, for the same price. Fact.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

No. They only "have" to do this because the law is the way that it
is. Laws can be changed or dumped entirely - they are a means to an
end, not a raison d'etre.



This is not a service that is absolutely required.

That is a completely different argument, and you know it. By law, RM
*must* deliver to every address, for the same price. Fact. Whether
or not it is required is beside the point.

It's exactly the point.



Yes indeed - and whilst that would doubtless reduce junk or
unnecessary mail, particularly to remote areas, it would also
penalise every Granny and Auntie who wanted to send a card to a
remote relative.

So base it on weight and size. Besides..... Granny and Auntie can
just as easily send an email.

Granny cannot send an e-mail if Granny cannot use a computer, or the
recipient cannot.

Then Granny and the recipient should be disappointed. There aren't
carrier pigeon services or mail coaches to York any more either.



Believe me, there are vast armies of everyday people who could not
survive without written documentation.

The real situation is that they can't be bothered to look and
something else because it hasn't been organised for them.

Quite possibly, but again, that is hardly the point.

Again it's exactly the point.



Well, those that can read, anyway. Your argument also assumes that
everyone has, or has access to, a computer. Whilst that is becoming
true, there are, once again, armies of people who have never used a
computer, and never want to.

That's their choice. It's not a necessity. Why does some archaic
service have to be provided just to cater for the incapable. It is
perfectly possible for almost anybody to use something based on a
keyboard and screen as a source of information and communication.

Possible, perhaps yes, but realistic? No.

Completely realistic.

Consider another technology area. Mobile phones. Deployment of these
is growing at a far greater rate than fixed line. For most of the
world's population, they have or will make their first phone call on
one. text messaging is built in and easy to use.




For example, decades ago in France the Minitel terminal was
introduced and given to every telephone subscriber instead of printed
directories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel

This was enormously successful and people did not have difficulty
using it - even old grannies.

True - but using a directory was faster!

Actually it was pretty good. I've used them a few times.


The system will not change until everyone has easy access to a
computer, and is happy to use one.

That's a crock of an excuse.

You are of my generation. You have grown up using computers, and are
happy to do so. Yes, there are many 'silver surfers' also happy, but
there are far more who just cannot grasp PINs and plastic cards, never
mind computers. Things will change, as older people die. Nothing
changes overnight.

It's going to change awfully quickly. Consider that before about 1990
the Internet was the preserve of those technically able to work out how
to use it and that wasn't easy. Now it's a plug and play thing with
"broadband" available to the masses.

Another 10-15 years and I think that paper based mail services will be
largely irrelevant. Put it this way. I might buy more stock in
Fedex. I sure as hell wouldn't buy any in Royal Mail.



One might as well say that public transport should run with horse
pulled carts because people don't like the idea of getting into buses.

Doubtless there were millions of people alive when buses were
introduced, and equally doubtless a great many of them went to their
graves never having used any form of motorised transport.

Of course. But nobody gave a second thought about introducing motorised
transport.



Fair enough, but switching everyone to electronic bills and
statements does not save money - it merely moves it.

People who insist on paper bills should pay more - that's perfectly
reasonable

I don't doubt that will happen, in time.

Really rather quickly and the quicker the better.



Someone, somewhere will have to ensure that all these people have a
computer, and the skill to use it.

They can do it themselves. Why the notion exists that someone has
to take responsibility for making sure people have a computer, I am
amazed.

I should have said have access to. Most people have access to, via a
public library, but that does not provide the skill or confidence to
use it.

Once again the mentality that there needs to be some kind of public
sector involvement in provisioning of this kind of thing. All the
time that there are these attempts to spoon feed people rather poorly,
they won't take responsibility for themselves. As soon as they have to
make their own arrangements, they will.





They managed to buy TV sets without any difficulty.

I hardly think that using a television is comparable to using a computer.

Both are sources of information, as is buying a newspaper or a
magazine. They inform and they entertain. There is absolutely no
reason why a computer is not the same other than in people's minds and
because there are people telling them that they can't do things. They
can.



I'd say your general philosophy is slightly to the right of Atilla The
Hun. What a bleak vision you have of the world.

On Fri, 4 May 2007 17:24:33 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
Another 10-15 years and I think that paper based mail services will
be largely irrelevant. Put it this way. I might buy more stock in
Fedex. I sure as hell wouldn't buy any in Royal Mail.

Well, to name but two, Dell and Viking don't think sending out paper a
waste of time and outdated. They send me paper by the ream, presumably
because it is an more effective way of selling. ISTM that the amount of
'junk mail' is growing not declining.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On 2007-05-04 18:42:30 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-04 16:39:39 +0100, Graeme said:




They managed to buy TV sets without any difficulty.

I hardly think that using a television is comparable to using a computer.

Both are sources of information, as is buying a newspaper or a
magazine. They inform and they entertain. There is absolutely no
reason why a computer is not the same other than in people's minds and
because there are people telling them that they can't do things.
They can.



I'd say your general philosophy is slightly to the right of Atilla The Hun.

Hardly.



What a bleak vision you have of the world.

Not at all.

The bleak vision of the world is one where people are not self
sufficient. Quite simply, it doesn't scale. There's nothing worse
than putting people down or making excuses for them.

The Chinese proverb:


Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and
you feed him for a lifetime.


I'd take that a step further:

Show him how to learn and he will be able to find out how to fish, feed
himself for a lifetime and do a great deal more besides.

On 2007-05-04 19:54:53 +0100, Tony Bryer said:

On Fri, 4 May 2007 18:17:39 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
Plus I don't like the look of the guy on the front cover of the
Viking catalogue.

Irwin Helford. http://www.myspace.com/irwinhelford - "Official Irwin
Helford Fan Club"

"Growing up as one of four sons of Chicago-area restaurateurs, I.
Helford (real name Irwin or Ian as his UK friends will know him as),
majored in Marketing at Roosevelt University from 1950 - 1952 before
going on active duty with the U.S. Navy. After his tour of duty,
Helford married and went to work for the Wilson Jones Company in
Chicago, which at the time was the largest manufacturer of office
supplies, where he did shipping, warehouse work, customer service and
sales. From there, he became general manager of the Reliable Corp. in
Chicago, another major office products supplier, where he worked his
way up over 24 years to vice president. Helford moved to southern
California in 1984 to become president and chief operating officer of
Viking Office Products, which he later built into the largest
direct-mail office products retailer in the United States, Europe and
Australia. Under his leadership, company sales grew from less than $15
million in the U.S. in 1983 to more than $1.6 billion worldwide by
1998.served as Chairman of Viking's Board and Chief Executive Officer
of Viking from September 1984 until August 1998 when Viking merged
with Office Depot. Since September 1999 Irwin has served as Chairman
Emeritus of their Viking subsidiary."

You know I find it such a joy to deal with a firm whose boss can take
the trouble to look at my file and drop me a personal note "I see you
haven't ordered any green copy paper since ...." g


Chairman Emeritus eh....

I must admit I didn't know that they were connected with Office Deepo.

On Fri, 4 May 2007 17:23:31 UTC, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

I've always wondered how come long distance telephone calls cost the
consumer more than local calls?

They used to, because there was more work (multiple operators) involved.

But most *consumer* tariffs haven't differentiated for a while
now...althiugh business ones can.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Fri, 4 May 2007 18:23:31 +0100 The Medway Handyman wrote :
I've always wondered how come long distance telephone calls cost the
consumer more than local calls?

In that case it was probably a case of using price to keep down demand.
ISTR hearing stories of villages that only had a couple of lines linking
them with the outside world.

Similar thing about having cheaper calls after 1pm and cheaper again in
the evening, cheap cross-Channel trips at unsocial times, discounted
theatre tickets earlier in the week: make more money off your existing
infrastructure rather than expand it to meet peak demand and see it even
more under-utilised at other times.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Fri, 4 May 2007 18:17:39 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
Plus I don't like the look of the guy on the front cover of the
Viking catalogue.

Irwin Helford. http://www.myspace.com/irwinhelford - "Official Irwin
Helford Fan Club"

"Growing up as one of four sons of Chicago-area restaurateurs, I.
Helford (real name Irwin or Ian as his UK friends will know him as),
majored in Marketing at Roosevelt University from 1950 - 1952 before
going on active duty with the U.S. Navy. After his tour of duty,
Helford married and went to work for the Wilson Jones Company in
Chicago, which at the time was the largest manufacturer of office
supplies, where he did shipping, warehouse work, customer service and
sales. From there, he became general manager of the Reliable Corp. in
Chicago, another major office products supplier, where he worked his
way up over 24 years to vice president. Helford moved to southern
California in 1984 to become president and chief operating officer of
Viking Office Products, which he later built into the largest
direct-mail office products retailer in the United States, Europe and
Australia. Under his leadership, company sales grew from less than $15
million in the U.S. in 1983 to more than $1.6 billion worldwide by
1998.served as Chairman of Viking's Board and Chief Executive Officer
of Viking from September 1984 until August 1998 when Viking merged
with Office Depot. Since September 1999 Irwin has served as Chairman
Emeritus of their Viking subsidiary."

You know I find it such a joy to deal with a firm whose boss can take
the trouble to look at my file and drop me a personal note "I see you
haven't ordered any green copy paper since ...." g

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In message , Andy Hall writes
My father is almost that old. He has.



They have managed to use motor cars and to get onto buses and into
trains as opposed to
requiring horses and carts after all.

She was quite a bit younger when she mastered that!

It's part of the conveyor belt of life. If you think about it, there
aren't any technologies that have not been introduced or developed
(assuming that they are commercially viable) because a section of the
population couldn't use them. It's not an argument not to do them.


I do, however, remember a letter on the letters page of a newspaper when
I was about 15 which asked why we didn't wait until the old people died
off before we went to a decimalised currency


--
geoff

In message , Andy Hall writes

They managed to buy TV sets without any difficulty.
I hardly think that using a television is comparable to using a
computer.

Both are sources of information, as is buying a newspaper or a
magazine. They inform and they entertain. There is absolutely no
reason why a computer is not the same other than in people's minds and
because there are people telling them that they can't do things. They can.


No, it's a completely alien world to some people

My mother, a teacher all her life, is totally incapable of coming to
terms with hers, she's scared of it, she doesn't understand it and
switches off when you try to explain things.

It just doesn't work with some people


--
geoff

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-05-04 18:54:33 +0100, Tony Bryer said:

On Fri, 4 May 2007 17:24:33 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
Another 10-15 years and I think that paper based mail services will
be largely irrelevant. Put it this way. I might buy more stock in
Fedex. I sure as hell wouldn't buy any in Royal Mail.
Well, to name but two, Dell and Viking don't think sending out paper

waste of time and outdated. They send me paper by the ream, presumably
because it is an more effective way of selling. ISTM that the amount of
'junk mail' is growing not declining.

Mmm...

Which is why I have stopped dealing with both firms and have told them why.

Plus I don't like the look of the guy on the front cover of the Viking
catalogue.

Long time since I used them, I use Lyreco now

I get a real person coming to see me once a month, and I get discounts
that just wouldn't be on the cards with Viking


--
geoff

On 2007-05-04 20:51:31 +0100, raden said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

They managed to buy TV sets without any difficulty.
I hardly think that using a television is comparable to using a computer.

Both are sources of information, as is buying a newspaper or a
magazine. They inform and they entertain. There is absolutely no
reason why a computer is not the same other than in people's minds and
because there are people telling them that they can't do things. They
can.


No, it's a completely alien world to some people

My mother, a teacher all her life, is totally incapable of coming to
terms with hers, she's scared of it, she doesn't understand it and
switches off when you try to explain things.

It just doesn't work with some people

Trying to do too much?

A simple web browser environment and nothing else is one way around
that problem; or even walled garden environments like AOL or MSNTV

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-05-04 20:51:31 +0100, raden said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

They managed to buy TV sets without any difficulty.
I hardly think that using a television is comparable to using a computer.
Both are sources of information, as is buying a newspaper or a
magazine. They inform and they entertain. There is absolutely no
reason why a computer is not the same other than in people's minds
and because there are people telling them that they can't do things.


No, it's a completely alien world to some people
My mother, a teacher all her life, is totally incapable of coming to
terms with hers, she's scared of it, she doesn't understand it and
switches off when you try to explain things.
It just doesn't work with some people

Trying to do too much?

No


A simple web browser environment and nothing else is one way around
that problem; or even walled garden environments like AOL or MSNTV

No - you still can't see the point that she finds it alien and she's
scared of it

It just doesn't work in the way that she thinks

--
geoff

On 2007-05-04 22:15:26 +0100, raden said:

In message , Andy Hall writes


A simple web browser environment and nothing else is one way around
that problem; or even walled garden environments like AOL or MSNTV

No - you still can't see the point that she finds it alien and she's
scared of it

It just doesn't work in the way that she thinks

Something that works like and on a tv?

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2007-05-04 22:15:26 +0100, raden said:

In message , Andy Hall writes

A simple web browser environment and nothing else is one way around
that problem; or even walled garden environments like AOL or MSNTV

No - you still can't see the point that she finds it alien and she's
scared of it
It just doesn't work in the way that she thinks

Something that works like and on a tv?

OK, you are welcome to bimble up to Shrewsbury and prove your argument
....

I would even give you a silver thruppeny bit if you succeed

--
geoff

On 2007-05-04 23:37:00 +0100, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
Graeme said:
... it would also penalise every Granny and Auntie who wanted to send a
card to a remote relative.
So base it on weight and size. Besides..... Granny and Auntie can
just as easily send an email.

But they can't enclose a fiver in an email - at least not in a form
that can be spent easily by a child at the local shop.

Owain

Sure they can. At least two ways


- The child has a bank or building society account and the money can be
transferred to that.

- Prepaid card. These can be set up once and topped up by granny or
anyone else.


Apart from the money given, there are several educational experiences
as well, which make the whole exercise much better than sending a
fiver. This is all before one considers the security risk of sending
cash in the post:

- During the lifetime of most under 18s today, use of cash will
continue to decline and may even disappear so learning about the use of
card transactions will be essential and the earlier the better

- The local shop may not be accepting card payments today. The child
consumer can learn about market choice and buy from those that do. If
it encourages the local shop to take steps towards being cashless, all
to the good.

- Visiting a building society, queuing for half an hour because they
pretend to be banks but have no clue about customer service and
deciding early in life not to deal with them in later life

- Visiting a bank branch, discovering that they are almost as bad as
building societies, getting the cash from a machine anyway and
wondering what the purpose for the branch is anyway. During their
lifetime, they will visit mockup ones in theme parks just like the
Victorian sweetie shops are there today.

On Sat, 5 May 2007 08:53:31 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Apart from the money given, there are several educational experiences
as well, which make the whole exercise much better than sending a
fiver. This is all before one considers the security risk of sending
cash in the post:

- During the lifetime of most under 18s today, use of cash will
continue to decline and may even disappear so learning about the use of
card transactions will be essential and the earlier the better

- The local shop may not be accepting card payments today. The child
consumer can learn about market choice and buy from those that do. If
it encourages the local shop to take steps towards being cashless, all
to the good.

- Visiting a building society, queuing for half an hour because they
pretend to be banks but have no clue about customer service and
deciding early in life not to deal with them in later life

- Visiting a bank branch, discovering that they are almost as bad as
building societies, getting the cash from a machine anyway and
wondering what the purpose for the branch is anyway. During their
lifetime, they will visit mockup ones in theme parks just like the
Victorian sweetie shops are there today.

.... all reducing the 'personal choice' element...

--
Frank Erskine

In message , raden
writes
In message , Andy Hall writes

A simple web browser environment and nothing else is one way around
that problem; or even walled garden environments like AOL or MSNTV

No - you still can't see the point that she finds it alien and she's
scared of it

Geoff, I understand exactly what you are saying.

My Mum is now 82, and prior to retiring, had been employed by the same
solicitor from just after WWII, with time off when my brother and I were
born. I suppose, these days, she would have been a 'legal executive'.
Anyway, just prior to her retirement, the firm was taken over, and word
processors were introduced. Poor old Mum was reduced to tears on a
daily basis, because she just couldn't 'get it', in the way that we can,
and do.
--
Graeme

On 2007-05-05 09:41:11 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Sat, 5 May 2007 08:53:31 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Apart from the money given, there are several educational experiences
as well, which make the whole exercise much better than sending a
fiver. This is all before one considers the security risk of sending
cash in the post:

- During the lifetime of most under 18s today, use of cash will
continue to decline and may even disappear so learning about the use of
card transactions will be essential and the earlier the better

- The local shop may not be accepting card payments today. The child
consumer can learn about market choice and buy from those that do. If
it encourages the local shop to take steps towards being cashless, all
to the good.

- Visiting a building society, queuing for half an hour because they
pretend to be banks but have no clue about customer service and
deciding early in life not to deal with them in later life

- Visiting a bank branch, discovering that they are almost as bad as
building societies, getting the cash from a machine anyway and
wondering what the purpose for the branch is anyway. During their
lifetime, they will visit mockup ones in theme parks just like the
Victorian sweetie shops are there today.

... all reducing the 'personal choice' element...

Different personal choice. I found dozens of different products with
different offerings and brandings:

- Pink ones with unicorns

- Engerland ones with flags and footballers

- Sir Richard Branson's offering (he never misses opportunities)

- Even one called Johnny Cash (I suppose that older teenagers might
like to use these for condom purchase).