We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Universal Phone Service Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Populist Liberal Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2114
Description[?]:
| Whereas, we can't imagine how awful it would be to have no telephone, or we can but hate the thought of it, We hereby propose that the government provide free local phone service to every Kanjoran. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning phone services.
Old value:: The state subsidizes the phone service of low income families, and regulates the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Current: Telephone lines are provided free of charge to all citizens.
Proposed: Telephone lines are provided free of charge to all citizens.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:53:32, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Universal Phone Service Act |
| Message | We don't think current law is so bad, but we feel that with the monopolistic nature of local phone service, it makes sense for the government to take it over. We also feel that even with the government subsidizing low-income families' phone services, there still could be some families forced to go without it-- and we would like to rectify that. |
| Date | 00:17:28, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Secular Humanist Party | To | Debating the Universal Phone Service Act |
| Message | Yes, I agree with this. |
| Date | 00:34:18, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Universal Phone Service Act |
| Message | I don't believe I can support this. Low income families are already provided telephone services and rates are regulated to prevent price gouging and the like. Also, monopolies are illegal and can be dealt with appropriately. This would seem to go to far. |
| Date | 00:56:26, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Universal Phone Service Act |
| Message | Monopolies are illegal if maintained through illegal means, but it's the nature of things that one company will own the phone lines, creating a "natural monopoly." We currently subsidize phone lines for low-income families, but we do not provide them free of charge. We wish to provide them free of charge. |
| Date | 02:08:57, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran People's Party | To | Debating the Universal Phone Service Act |
| Message | By "subsidize the phone service of low-income families" they mean the government pays the whole thing. So half of that argument is a wash. On monopolies though, we regulate how much phone companies can charge anyway. Therefore, phone companies are not receiving extra benefits for being "natural monopolies". I think that takes care of the second half of your argument. |
| Date | 02:24:25, September 20, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Universal Phone Service Act |
| Message | We read "subsidize" differently. When something is subsidized, that means the government pays for part of it rather than all of it. If the government "subsidizes" prescription research and development, as we support, that doesn't mean we pay for it all. Rather, it means that we pay for just enough so that it continues to occur, when otherwise our proposed price regulations might stifle much of it. But anyway, while we don't think current law is all that bad, we believe that private monopolies are often even less efficient than public monopolies and in the regulated prices we still have to allow them some reasonable profit; whereas the government can do it without having to be allowed any profit. There are only a few natural monopolies, generally public utilities. We are hesitant to completely nationalize non-monopolies (although from other debate you know we will do it as a last resort, and we will support providing a public service and allowing private ones to compete with it), but we don't believe there should be private monopolies. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 177 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 263 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy has 464 player slots. |
| Random quote: "When was the last time you talked about race with someone of a different race? If the answer is never, you're part of the problem." - Bill Bradley |