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: Posts and Telegraph Bill 2269
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Democratic 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: May 2272
Description[?]:
| A bill making provisions for telephony services. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning phone services.
Old value:: Telephone lines are provided free of charge to all citizens.
Current: Telephone lines are provided free of charge to all citizens.
Proposed: The state subsidizes the phone service of low income families, and regulates the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:35:19, August 16, 2006 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Posts and Telegraph Bill 2269 |
| Message | Opposed. Phone lines constitute a corporate monopoly when privatized, unless you propose allowing different corporations to set up different phone lines. The only fair way to handle the situation is to allow the government to control them. |
| Date | 17:11:38, August 16, 2006 CET | From | Páirtí Sóisialach | To | Debating the Posts and Telegraph Bill 2269 |
| Message | HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm sorry, I couldn't help it. IADP, a public monopoly is always worse than a private one. Anyway, this government knows better than to sell all the phone service to one company. Even though it doesn't signify anything in the law, you can be certain that private monopolies will not occur in this industry at least. |
| Date | 03:17:53, August 17, 2006 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Posts and Telegraph Bill 2269 |
| Message | How can they not, since only one will provide service for the people in an area without competition. That is, is it not, the definition of monopoly? |
| Date | 14:21:18, August 17, 2006 CET | From | Páirtí Sóisialach | To | Debating the Posts and Telegraph Bill 2269 |
| Message | Actually, it's 40 per cent of the whole market, but who's counting? |
| Date | 03:15:34, August 18, 2006 CET | From | Catholic Workers Union | To | Debating the Posts and Telegraph Bill 2269 |
| Message | 40 percent of what? |
| Date | 23:06:59, August 18, 2006 CET | From | Páirtí Sóisialach | To | Debating the Posts and Telegraph Bill 2269 |
| Message | Like I said, the whole market for a product/service. Regional monopolies in utilities are sometimes unavoidable. Take electricity for example. You cannot simply change your electric company. You can, however, change you phone company. This is why A). a monopoly would not form and B). even if a company constituted a monopoly, it would not charge uncompetitive prices, because their clientel could simply change phone service. That is why, when analysing monopolies, the entire market is considered and not simply a local street-corner. |
| Date | 13:00:30, August 19, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Democratic Party | To | Debating the Posts and Telegraph Bill 2269 |
| Message | The problems with a private monopoly are why this bill also proposes regulation of that monopoly. This way, the state can do its job of ensuring fair service, and the company can do its job of maximising profits, without these being conflicting goals for a state-owned industry. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 63 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 157 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 80 |
| Random fact: "Kubrk" is a Jelbic word that has the colloquial meaning "old man" or "geezer". |
| Random quote: "While we may not always agree it is my hope that we may always be civil." - Jonathan Clarke, former Hutorian politician |