Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xantar
I'm not sure where you think Verizon has a monopoly, though. There are plenty of cell phone carriers out there. Unless you're talking about DSL in which case Comcast cable is arguably a direct competitor.
|
I was referring to land lines. Verizon owen virtually alll of the land lines on the east coast and their only competition are small companies that actually re-sell Verizon services. I used to work for a company that had contracts with Verizon and it breaks down like this:
When Bell Atlantic decided it wanted to merge with other carriers basically re-create the old AT&T, the government wouldn't let them because they would monopolize the land line industry. Cell phones are not a competitor because there are laws on the books that make land line ownership manditory for a large number of Americans (any household with minors, for one). So a compromise was made that Verizon would allow smaller companies to "re-sell" Verizon services. Verizon was made to sell their services to these re-sellers (like Cavalier) at a cut price so that they could re-sell them at a price that is cheaper than Verizon's retail.
The problem is that all of the maintenance and service personnel are still Verizon, and Cavalier has no infrastructure. So if you have Cavalier instread of Verizon, your service level is absolutely pathetic because Verizon still has to fix and maintain everything even though they are taking a loss on it.
In my mind, this is not what I think "competition" is supposed to be.
Quote:
|
Privatization is a political as well as an economic matter, and I think you're pretty familiar with the issue already since that's basically what the health care debate is all about. It's just that in this case, instead of a for profit company selling you physician services, a for profit company is lifting crates at the harbors. The question, as always, is whether that is a service that's too valuable to be entrusted to a private corporation.
|
Well, there are a number of differences between comparing port authority and healthcare. When it comes to the ports, there is no compromise or middle ground. Either the US owns the control or another company does. I think in healthcare an option should be given to people if they want private or public. If you want public, fine, but expect long lines and a lower standard of care (but still an acceptable and hippocratic one). If you want private, then you can expect a little better. Also, I think if the government would federalize pain and suffering caps on settlements, healthcare costs would plummet and most people would be able to afford at least a decent plan.
As for the Port Bonds, it goes some thing like this: The US issues bonds to US citizens to purchase the rights to the ports, keeping the economics of the transaction within free trade. The US then runs the ports, but the ownership is in that of American citizens and the investors reap the rewards. I think thats how it works, anyway.