Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!idallen From: idallen@watmath.UUCP Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Doing only that which brings the most profit. Message-ID: <8694@watmath.UUCP> Date: Sat, 18-Aug-84 01:45:32 EDT Article-I.D.: watmath.8694 Posted: Sat Aug 18 01:45:32 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 00:22:03 EDT References: <740@ubc-ean.CDN> <1050@dciem.UUCP>, <999@hcrvax.UUCP>, <8680@watmath.UUCP>, <4226@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 25 >From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) >Subject: Re: Doing only that which brings the most profit. > >...And the telephone companies can finance their own way through long >distance charges. But why should they do so, if providing remote locations with service is not *profitable*? Why not drop the unprofitable aspects of the business, as I have heard people argue in this news group? >Consider that there are always alternative ways in which one could do >something. It may not have all the features that one would like, but if >it is substantially cheaper then people will use it anyway. it is not >that they do not appreciate the features of the other service, but that >they do not think that it is worth the cost. I don't think it possible to provide less features than a telephone line and still call it a telephone. My point is -- I am pleased to pay a little more for my own full-feature comforts (e.g. telephone) if it allows others to enjoy the same (e.g. telephone). A business that is maximizing its profit cannot have the same outlook. Perhaps this is one function of government support of industry: equal cost for equal service, regardless of geographic location, disability, native language, or gender. -- -IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo