Let’s nationalize more companies, starting with Bell and Rogers

[tinoesroho]

Gerard Kaplan sez:

The British Labour Party has begun to make the case that market fundamentalism, or neoliberalism, is not necessarily the best way for society to operate. Specifically, it’s been trying to show that private enterprise is not always superior to public enterprise.

Beginning with Margaret Thatcher, British governments have denuded the UK of almost all public enterprises, from British Airways to the Royal Mail. The Labour Party Opposition wants to remind Brits that some entities actually make more sense under public auspices. Fortunately for them, I am in a position to offer my Labour comrades foolproof evidence for their gambit. Two words: Rogers and Bell.

The best case for public enterprises, bar none, is interacting with these vast operations, in so many ways the quintessence of modern corporate capitalism. One deals with them, of course, only in life-and-death circumstances, when there is absolutely no alternative. Like when you lose your cellphone, as I foolishly did.

Let’s nationalize more companies, starting with Bell and Rogers

[gadgetgirl]

I am all for this. They’re such an obvious duopoly. And City-TV’s change in editorial stance since the buyout is obvious.

[tinoesroho]

Aw man, the weak-ass defense of privatized telecos by Andrew Seipp makes me laugh.

Last week Gerald Caplan suggested that Canada should start nationalizing companies, especially telecom giants like Bell and Rogers, namely because of their dismal customer service. It’s not that I disagree with his sentiment, as my consulting practice is built in part on helping customers avoid the pain of dealing with their telecom providers. But the idea of replacing a cozy oligopoly with a government monopoly is asinine. In fact, you needn’t look far to see what it would look like.

Just look at Canada Post.

“But look at Canada Post! A government entity that has had its funding cut. One that provides a public good. Just lookit it! Isn’t it terrible?” is essentially what Andrew’s really weak-ass defense boils down to.

The status quo sucks because cartels are setting prices and profiting handsomely. Then these companies have the gall to bug for more government handouts, more copyright monopoly, and the power to censor the internet.

No, fuck you. Fuck you, Mr Seipp. Fuck you and your cartel.

The solution is nationalizing the damn telecoms, so that we can cheaply, efficiently, and equitably provide communications for all Canadians.

[kxkvi]

“Gummint don’t work!”
Cut budget of government service.
Government service deteriorates further.
“See? Gummint don’t work!”
Rinse, then repeat.

[gadgetgirl]

“But look at Canada Post! A government entity that has had its funding cut. One that provides a public good. Just lookit it! Isn’t it terrible?” is essentially what Andrew’s really weak-ass defense boils down to.

Everyone I know who works for Canada Post hates their management, who are all more interested in proving the service doesn’t work than in making sure it works.

And the truth is, it does work pretty well, given the constraints it’s under.

[MalevolentPixy]

Do we need to nationise them, or create nationalised competitors?

I hold up Saskatchewan as an example. The big guys have one set of deals in most of the country except Saskatchewan. Why? Because SaskTel will undercut them if they do. Cell phone plans in Saskatchewan are made with SaskTel in mind. Oh, they’ll tell you some nonsense about geography and signals, but it’s no easier than in most of Alberta or Manitoba.

Oh, the big guys will whine and cry and throw a hissy fit, but that’s their problem. It’ll be their job to prove that they can do better, like they claim.

[Purplecat]

Do we need to nationise them , or create nationalised competitors?

That’s a very important question that has a different answer depending on the individual circumstances of each sector that you’re talking about.

• it can be a lot better to start up a competitor rather than buy out the privateers’ shareholders.
• some services exist where competition is simply not feasible, due to huge fixed costs of entry and/ or network effects. Take water supply for example- multiple systems of competing water pipes supplying each home or business make no sense, so a public monopoly is sensible. Your other example, of cell phone networks is one where a “public option” can work, so long as all the networks can inter-operate.

[CameronH1403]

It’ll be their job to prove that they can do better, like they claim.

We love competition until it shows we suck as a company. then we need protection from the government!

-every company

[TobinL]

as my consulting practice is built in part on helping customers avoid the pain of dealing with their telecom providers.

That says it all right there… it will ruin my business model.

[nimelennar]

I don’t care if the remainder of their policy statements are “We will murder puppies and kittens,” if a candidate runs on nationalizing Bell and Rogers, I will almost feel morally obligated to vote for then.

[MalevolentPixy]

Your other example, of cell phone networks is one where a “public option” can work, so long as all the networks can inter-operate.

Bell and Rogers are the two big media companies – telephone, cable, cell, internet, even TV networks. Saskatchewan is proof of concept that they are vulnerable on a couple of those flanks. They are the only province that didn’t privatise their telephone corporation, and customers of all the companies get better deals there than in the rest of the country, and it’s not due to having a large, densely packed, easy to service customer base.

Hence, I would settle for government taking a good, hard look at whether said companies are living up to their CRTC obligations, see that they are not, and create a crown corp to “take up the slack”. In other words, provide decent, affordable service to all Canadians. Like municipal fibre in the US, the idea would cause panic. The difference being that there would be no higher level of government to create laws banning it.

I don’t care if the remainder of their policy statements are “We will murder puppies and kittens,” if a candidate runs on nationalizing Bell and Rogers, I will almost feel morally obligated to vote for then.

Nah. I still wouldn’t vote Conservative.

[gadgetgirl]

Nah. I still wouldn’t vote Conservative.

[Chef’s kiss]

[nimelennar]

Nah. I still wouldn’t vote Conservative.

Come on. When have the Tories nationalized anything?