• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why doesn't the government provide cell phone service?

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I see nothing wrong with government working for our convenience. It's for us that the government exists, and like a computer program, we can program it to do whatever we want.
Government "of, by and for" the people sounds good. Democracy sounds good. After all, don't we choose our own leaders, to serve our own needs? Aren't they Public Servants?

That's the essence of the Social Contract, n'est-ce pas?
This is radical, left-wing socialism, by today's standards -- practically Rooseveltianism! [?]
You know what guys, the government never does anything for the middle class. It's all about the dirt poor and the filthy rich.
Good point. Today's income inequality equals that preceding the Great Depression. The working classes really have been voting against their best interests in electing corporate toadys, though both parties are complicit.

The Democratic party long ago abandoned the interests of the working class, hoping for better funding from supporting the white-collar, professional classes. Meanwhile, behind its populist facade, the Republican party has always stood behind corporate interests. Result: stagnant economy, shrinking middle class, growing poverty and expensive bread and circuses to keep the impoverished quiescent.
What's the Matter with Kansas? - Wikipedia

You intimate that government can be the solution, rather than the problem. How is this not a socialist sentiment?
Sometimes you confuse me. o_O
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
True. That would be the incentive for many to keep private providers like Sprint, Verizon, etc. That way nobody has a monopoly, not even the government.
I agree with Snowden. I don't think private providers are any real impediment to government surveillance.
Why do people who never drive interstate have to subsidize the "freeway" system?
Tom
Hey -- I live in a city quadrisected by two interstates. The fastest way to get anywhere more than a few miles away is the 'freeway'. :cool:

Seriously, though. I have no children, but have no objection to paying for public education. Living in a pleasant, comfortable, civilized society has its price.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Hey -- I live in a city quadrisected by two interstates. The fastest way to get anywhere more than a few miles away is the 'freeway'. :cool:
Apparently, you can afford a car as well as the taxes that keep up the illusion of "freeways".
Why not you throw a buck into the toll booth when it's worth it to save time, and the guy who bicycles or takes a bus can stop subsidizing you and the auto industry and big oil companies?
How about that?
Tom
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting any sort of regulations or ceilings on corporations at all... Just on the government.
But "The Government" is the de facto legislative branch of the Corporatocracy: banking, big business and the military industrial complex. It doesn't work for us.
...The government is just a program, and we are the programmers. In fact, I would even be for firing the majority of government workers and replacing them with computer programs, or "algorithms".
Now you're starting to sound like me. (I'm so confused....)
I support a government of, by and for The People; a democracy; government as a people's co-op. That's the way to expand public services.
What's your approach?
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
But "The Government" is the de facto legislative branch of the Corporatocracy: banking, big business and the military industrial complex. It doesn't work for us.
Now you're starting to sound like me. (I'm so confused....)
I support a government of, by and for The People; a democracy; government as a people's co-op. That's the way to expand public services.
What's your approach?

My approach is the same one as yours. Remember, both left and right wing politicians can be corporatists. Even "global" corporatists. You and I and others not appreciating that, is a sign that corporatism is in no way partisan… It's us being against the elitists together non-partisanly.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
But "The Government" is the de facto legislative branch of the Corporatocracy: banking, big business and the military industrial complex. It doesn't work for us.

Oh, you don't like the banks? Neither do I.

...Bank of America refuses to cash my checks if they're over $4000.00, even if it's drawn from there. I want more regulations on banks to help the middle class, because they ****** me off one too many times. :)

They should *have* to cash their own checks by law!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My only objective is reducing costs, and serving the middle class.
Power to the people, eh?
Landon's gone Hippie...
That's why I like Trump. Nobody owns Trump because he's a real-estate guy. Real-estate people are independent from corporations, unlike the Bush's, who have several generations in the oil industry.

...Now if we could just 'clear the swamp' of all the other politicians with their tie-downs, the world would be a better place.
....and back to Earth.
Trump is no friend of the middle class -- or the working class, for that matter.
Trump gallops off in all directions on a daily basis, but the Republican administration has learned to keep him more or less in line. He seems ill suited for the position he now holds.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have no problem with Capitalism and Socialism living side by side... I'm all about options... Variety is the spice of life, and it's fun to watch competitions.

...I'm just curious to see what would happen.
Look to history. This has all happened before. Income inequality. Recession, poverty. One side of the pond moved Left, the other Right.
Oh, you don't like the banks? Neither do I.

...Bank of America refuses to cash my checks if they're over $4000.00, even if it's drawn from there. I want more regulations on banks to help the middle class, because they ****** me off one too many times. :)

They should *have* to cash their own checks by law!
Amen brother! (I bank at a credit union).
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Apparently, you can afford a car as well as the taxes that keep up the illusion of "freeways".
Why not you throw a buck into the toll booth when it's worth it to save time, and the guy who bicycles or takes a bus can stop subsidizing you and the auto industry and big oil companies?
How about that?
Tom
What about taxing gas as we in Europe do? Ideally that money would be earmarked just for road infrastructure and environmental issues caused by traffic.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Petrol's always been more expensive in Europe, but I'd have to compare the proportion taxed to assess tax rates. and that varies a lot here in different jurisdictions.
 

Iymus

Active Member
After spending a pretty hefty amount of money on my cell phone bill, I was just wondering why nobody ever suggests that the government creates it's own cellular service, where instead of profits, the government option would merely base prices on what is necessary to maintain the service.

What's your opinion on an optional public cellular service provider, in competition with privatized providers?

In the meantime look into more affordable prepaid plans. Here is a compilation for those of us in USA:

Best Unlimited LTE Data Plans - BestPhonePlans
 

UpperLimits

Active Member
After spending a pretty hefty amount of money on my cell phone bill, I was just wondering why nobody ever suggests that the government creates it's own cellular service, where instead of profits, the government option would merely base prices on what is necessary to maintain the service.

What's your opinion on an optional public cellular service provider, in competition with privatized providers?

It works well. And it's usually very reasonable. But I think you need to understand how we got to the situation we are at today. I know your communications history in the States is a bit different from ours, but I think there are some lessons to be learned.

When I was growing up the government owned the phone services. Back then we paid a small monthly rate for local service. In contrast we sometimes paid horrendous rates for long distance.

In the early 1990's carriers lobbied for, and brought legal cases against the government, in order to gain access to the various government owned networks. They won their cases in the courts and then proceeded to undercut the government on the long distance rates. 10¢ a minute at the time, as I recall. What people failed to realize, however, was that the long distance rates were being used to subsidize the cost of providing the local service. The government services then began to be a taxpayer burden.

The government then sold their interests to private service providers. Adjusted for inflation, the same basic service (if you can call it that...) now costs about twice the price. The reason for the increase? Mainly corporate profits.

The same thing happened in the utilities area. I once had a gas bill that averaged $35 a month. Now it's closer to $90. And that's just because I spent a small fortune insulating the bejabbywockers out of my house (R200 in the roof). The reason for the increase? Privatization and the addition of corporate profit levels.

And my electrical??? WOWZA!! It's gone up over 5X!! We're now the most expensive prices in North America. Oh - And it just went up again this month because they just introduced a carbon tax to our region. The reason for the increase? Again, privatization and the addition of corporate profit levels.
.
Believe me. I liked a little bit of LIMITED government control. But here's the basic problem; The money to build and operate the network has to come from somewhere. It all depends upon the business model. The government system worked well, but it couldn't compete on the open market. Especially when the courts declared it was illegal for them to keep competitors out of their system. Personally, I don't think they should have been allowed to use the public system. I think if they wanted to compete then they should have been forced to build their own networks - just like they had to do in the States. And that, my friend, explains why YOU have the cell bill you have.
 

UpperLimits

Active Member
How many taxpayers do you estimate do not use roads?
I would think there may be a few trade offs on this one.

Even if someone does not personally drive, I'm sure they've gone to the local supermarket and brought something that was brought in on a truck. Point is; We ALL benefit from the road system regardless of whether we directly use it, or not.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Just out of interest, how much does the average American pay each month for their cell phone service?

I just discovered recently while my sister was overseas that you can call someone directly through FaceBook for nothing?

She would phone me from France and it didn't cost anything.....who knew?
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
I think we should use are tax dollars to create cash cows by allowing farmers to get paid while the people buy out every grocery chain across the nation putting a single share of the profit in every man woman and child's pocket from sea to shining sea.
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
Uncle Sam has indeed offered subsidized phone service since Reagan. It started with him, but people began calling them "Obamaphones."
But, I agree a deed phone service would be good, and not just for low income like worth Lifeline phones.

And don't stop there.. what about grocceries and gasonline all paid for by American democracy giving each and every American an equal share of the profits of the socio-capital net.
 
Top