This is from another list via another list Mikeg ----------------------------- >All the very best, Ed. (Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC, Canada) >Dear Friends, Feb.16,1998. > >The BC Telephone Co., a Californian owned outfit, has been the phone >monopoly in BC since the beginning. This, of course, was a bee in the bonnet >of our staunch globalizers, neoclassical deregulators and competition >equilibrists. >A few years ago, on the pressure of big business and multinationals, not to >mention our own insatiable maniacs, the Canadian Radio and >Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), started hearings on the subject of >deregulation of long distance services. As usual, the argument was that the >deregulation and the opening up of the system to competition "will bring on >a better business climate, investor confidence, lower costs and prices and >create jobs." > >The usual, the cookie cutter "Famous Last Words" of good intentions on the >road to hell. > >I was one of many hundreds who presented written submissions to the CRTC, >showing US precedents, where deregulation and competition have raised costs, >prices and killed jobs. The inevitable and predictable results of all these >harebrained schemes. > >I also tried my famous "competition always increases costs" singsong, but it >went down like a rock in the bottomless pool of neoclassical dogmas. I am >wondering how long it will take before people realize that the laws of >thermodynamics and Newton's reaction laws also apply to economics and that >monetary gimmicks can not overcome them. There ain't no such thing as >"cheaper". All the ideological theories can do is to shift the increased >costs of competition onto other sectors. The simple fact that these rules >have already broken the backs of a thousand empires before us, the last one >being the Soviets, sure takes a long time to sink in. Keep the faith >Brothers! The wealth creating miracles of the free movement of investment >may be just around the corner....On the other hand it could also be the >perennial washed out road? > >The clever know-it-alls of the CRTC ignored all our protests and long >distance services were jubilantly deregulated. The result was that repair >services, which used to be prompt, free and immediate, started >deteriorating. It now takes days and weeks for repairs. People who signed up >with the long distance providers get 2 bills, 1 from BC Tel. for the lines, >another from the provider. > >People who move, or build new homes must wait for months for phones, whereas >it used to be a week or two, before deregulation. The installation of new >lines to outlying communities and of fiber optic cables was virtually >stopped. "We must deliver competitive dividends, or our shares will drop." >We were the last ones for fiber optics in this area. (Imagine mai-not and >economic debate without old Eddie?) > >Installation fees for new phones went up several hundred percent in urban >areas and to the clouds in rural. E.g. We got our phones for about $600. in >'87. one of our neighbours was quoted $800., which he couldn't afford at the >time. When he finally wanted to do it, after deregulation, the quoted price >became $12,000. >Another, inevitable result of "competition reducing costs and prices". > >It is a good thing that the deregulated competitive discipline of the >marketplace stopped inflation in Canada, otherwise goodness knows what the >prices would be under the stagnated monopoly we suffered with for all those >years. > >No jobs were created (Note to our pro MAI enthusiasts). In fact the sectors >that benefitted most from deregulation and the lower long distance costs, >i.e. banks, and big business have been most industriously firing people by >the thousands every year. > >BC Tel. have fired 2,000. Now, even those of us who have remained with BC >Tel. have to wait for ages and pay for services that used to be prompt and >free before. E.g. making calls through an operator, or local directory >information, etc. Those who signed up with providers, or changed all their >phones to outside suppliers pay even more and no free repairs. > >It is obvious, the company wants to get out of any service provisions and >transfer all repair and service costs on the public, so we would have to >call independent contractors for any repairs. > >Our phones have been inundated with pestering calls from long distance >providers, offering fantastic deals. I kept asking them to leave me alone >and to put it into their computers never to call me again, without any >results. Now I just use my best construction site expressions, until they >hang up. These providers are now also firing workers by the hundreds. One of >the largest is just laying off 800. > >To continue with the spirit of "cost cutting and wealth creating job >creation through deregulation and competition", our famous free trader >Liberal govt. have now opened up local services through the CRTC, as of the >beginning of this year. > >Thank you! Thank you! Messrs. Chretien, Marchi, et al....my basic phone bill >has just gone up 30% overnight. My son's bill in town by 50%. The rumour is >that within a year these figures will double, so that the company can >"maintain their competitive edge", so they can cut costs and spread some >more wealth around. Our groceries will go up by 25% and Stats Can will >report a booming economy and record breaking lowest inflation of .65% for '98. > >Now we can expect another continuous line of pestering calls, this time from >both the long distance and the local service providers, longer waits and >higher fees for repair and installation calls, but competition must go on. > >Or must it? Has anybody ever seen competition lowering costs and prices and >creating wealth? I have been looking for it all my life and have yet to see >any evidence of it. > >--------------------- > >PS: A brilliant idea just occurred to me, something that will definitely >bring joy to our "pro-MAI, sell the sewers to the multinationals", observers: > >Why don't we privatize our Parliaments, governments and Congress ? > >Then, instead of having to pay politicians poorly out of the public purse, >forcing them to beg for handouts from big business, they could be hired >outright to sit on corporate boards and in public offices. To ensure that >only the right thinking people get the jobs, the corporations would have to >bid to place their people into public offices. E.g. The highest bids would >buy the highest offices, as they already do it anyway. The money could go >into the public coffers, helping to pay off the interest on national debts >to keep the lenders happy and wealthy. It would be a very efficient sysytem >as it would save on the costs of carpetbaggers, go-betweens and lobbyists >and also save the trouble and expense of elections. People wouldn't have to >miss work, or hockey games on TV to go to vote and our countries would get >the best governments money can buy, spreading wealth and prosperity all over! > >Now that we are on the verge of an explosion of investment created wealth >with MAI, the growth of the bullish stockmarkets will become limitless. >Investors could easily miss out on the benefits of great stock deals on the >Hang Seng and Tokyo exchanges, while wasting time on voting. This shows >again that these needless elections are hampering the road to riches and an >efficient economy. > >Right now the Ministers of the MAI negotiating OECD countries can only drool >and cross their legs while forced to wait 2 or 4 years for directorships, >which is unfair. With the new system they would already be directors of the >corporations they are forced to serve under the table under the present >outdated system. They should be getting their directors' salaries while in >office, saving large amounts for the taxpayers, creating jobs and wealth >where none existed before. > >But then, taking a leaf out of the books of municipal councils who sell >their water and sewer systems to multinationals, why not have really >efficient, professional governments through highly trained specialists? >After all, if an Anglo-French conglomerate can own and run the sewer and >water systems of towns half a word away, why couldn't they run governments? >Why shouldn't the giant TNC, Intergov Inc. registered in the Grand Cayman >Islands, be able to run any government better, than the presently elected >amateurs, while creating the conditions for growth, wealth and jobs all over >the globe? > >All the very best, again Ed.
