Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.telecom > #39597 > unrolled thread

att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network

Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom

Contents

  att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-25 10:10 +0100
    Re: att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-25 12:43 +0100
      Re: att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-25 14:25 +0100
        Re: att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-25 16:13 +0100
          Re: att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-05-26 08:30 +0100
            Re: att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-26 09:56 +0100
    Re: att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-05-26 08:40 +0100

#39597 — att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network

I saw this in comp.misc

The problem is clear, phone companies should never have been
privatised. Corporations should not be able to sue the government.

The solution is to nationalize all utilities which are naturally
monopolistic.

Maybe if they privatised roads people would see what a bad idea
privatisation is.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network/

(Should nationalize be spelt with a z or an s? your thoughts.)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#39602

On 25/05/2026 10:10, Richmond wrote:
> Maybe if they privatised roads people would see what a bad idea
> privatisation is.
Whereas today the potholes and endless closures show exactly why public 
ownership sucks

-- 
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
...than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39603

On 25/05/2026 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Whereas today the potholes and endless closures show exactly why public 
> ownership sucks

Private minor roads are often worse, because the owners of the served 
properties tend not to want to pay sufficient estate charges to maintain 
them properly.  Because there is a more direct connection between the 
amounts demanded and the repair work, they are much more prepared to put 
up with a lack of repair.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39604

On 25/05/2026 14:25, David Woolley wrote:
> On 25/05/2026 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Whereas today the potholes and endless closures show exactly why 
>> public ownership sucks
> 
> Private minor roads are often worse, because the owners of the served 
> properties tend not to want to pay sufficient estate charges to maintain 
> them properly.  Because there is a more direct connection between the 
> amounts demanded and the repair work, they are much more prepared to put 
> up with a lack of repair.

You just made that up.

I am talking about real live public roads and the £800 bill I paid for 
straightening 4 wheels and replacing two tyres.

If it were a private road I could sue the owner.


-- 
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that 
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

    - Bertrand Russell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39607

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 25/05/2026 14:25, David Woolley wrote:
> > On 25/05/2026 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> Whereas today the potholes and endless closures show exactly why 
> >> public ownership sucks
> > 
> > Private minor roads are often worse, because the owners of the served 
> > properties tend not to want to pay sufficient estate charges to maintain 
> > them properly.  Because there is a more direct connection between the 
> > amounts demanded and the repair work, they are much more prepared to put 
> > up with a lack of repair.
> 
> You just made that up.
> 
> I am talking about real live public roads and the £800 bill I paid for 
> straightening 4 wheels and replacing two tyres.
> 
> If it were a private road I could sue the owner.
> 
I doubt it. I manage a private road so I do have some knowledge. Our
private road isn't actually owned by anyone (and this isn't so unusual
as you might think, I know of another one the same nearby).  Thus
there is no one to sue if you damage your car do to the road's
bumpiness.

-- 
Chris Green
·

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39612

Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> writes:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 25/05/2026 14:25, David Woolley wrote:
>> > On 25/05/2026 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> >> Whereas today the potholes and endless closures show exactly why 
>> >> public ownership sucks
>> > 
>> > Private minor roads are often worse, because the owners of the served 
>> > properties tend not to want to pay sufficient estate charges to maintain 
>> > them properly.  Because there is a more direct connection between the 
>> > amounts demanded and the repair work, they are much more prepared to put 
>> > up with a lack of repair.
>> 
>> You just made that up.
>> 
>> I am talking about real live public roads and the £800 bill I paid for 
>> straightening 4 wheels and replacing two tyres.
>> 
>> If it were a private road I could sue the owner.
>> 
> I doubt it. I manage a private road so I do have some knowledge. Our
> private road isn't actually owned by anyone (and this isn't so unusual
> as you might think, I know of another one the same nearby).  Thus
> there is no one to sue if you damage your car do to the road's
> bumpiness.

I've heard about pothole problems with private roads before.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/461226308085384/posts/2028105958064070/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39608

On Mon, 25 May 2026 10:10:24 +0100, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>I saw this in comp.misc
>
>The problem is clear, phone companies should never have been
>privatised. Corporations should not be able to sue the government.
>
>The solution is to nationalize all utilities which are naturally
>monopolistic.
>
>Maybe if they privatised roads people would see what a bad idea
>privatisation is.
>
>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/05/att-sues-california-in-attempt-to-shut-off-old-phone-network/
>
>(Should nationalize be spelt with a z or an s? your thoughts.)

Were US telephone networks ever run by the Government? I thought they
were always private companies. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom

csiph-web