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