CART connection charge

[Mick and Maggie]

I remember the good old days when the electricity industry was a public owned business. It was a monopoly industry. Thatcher and the government of the day sold it off to create competition to reduce charges through competition. No one had to have new cables laid. No matter where you were connected within the power supply system. You could buy your electricity from any one of a number of supplier. If you become unhappy with your current supplier, you can choose another. No need to move your property, no need for new cables to be laid. Private companies can set up in business buying electricity in bulk at cheap rates which allow them to offer discount prices therefore breaking the monopoly. Thus encouraging the risk of a cartel. So there is a regulator OFGEM to keep an eye on the suppliers. To ensure they are not colluding to do a bit of price fixing. The same was done with the gas supply, No need to move your home. No new pipes needed to be laid in the ground. You did not have to choose where you are connected to the system you could choose any one of a number of suppliers. You could build a house today then be connected to the gas and electricity network and choose any of the suppliers, you can change your supplier any time you want. You don't have to lay new pipes or lay new cables or even have to move home.

 

The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) regulates the monopoly companies (there are more than one monopoly company - like there are more than waterway authority) which run the gas and electricity networks. It takes decisions on price controls and enforcement, acting in the interests of consumers.

 

Pilings marina has a connection to a CaRT controlled waterway. To find a new connection to the inland waterways they need to move the marina or alternatively they need to excavate a different access point to a different authority. Plus its hard to be in a cartel of one. In this instance - it then falls into the remit of the monopolies commission. There are instances under BW when the monopolies commission have looked at the way BW was implementing its charging. Now as a charity, CaRT also becomes subject to the strictures of the charities commission. I imaging at some time either one of the pseudo regulators (monopolies and charity commission) will get involved. It will be interesting to see how they view the lack of competition and disparity in charging. Therefore CaRT is by definition a Monopoly and not subject to competition.

[John Holden]

I remember the good old days when the electricity industry was a public owned business. It was a monopoly industry. Thatcher and the government of the day sold it off to create competition to reduce charges through competition. No one had to have new cables laid. No matter where you were connected within the power supply system. You could buy your electricity from any one of a number of supplier. If you become unhappy with your current supplier, you can choose another. No need to move your property, no need for new cables to be laid. Private companies can set up in business buying electricity in bulk at cheap rates which allow them to offer discount prices therefore breaking the monopoly. Thus encouraging the risk of a cartel. So there is a regulator OFGEM to keep an eye on the suppliers. To ensure they are not colluding to do a bit of price fixing. The same was done with the gas supply, No need to move your home. No new pipes needed to be laid in the ground. You did not have to choose where you are connected to the system you could choose any one of a number of suppliers. You could build a house today then be connected to the gas and electricity network and choose any of the suppliers, you can change your supplier any time you want. You don't have to lay new pipes or lay new cables or even have to move home.

 

 

 

Er, as you so rightly comment, which ever gas or electricity you use, it is still the same product supplied by the same people through the same pipes or cables.

You only have the illusion of choice.

[Mick and Maggie]

 

Er, as you so rightly comment, which ever gas or electricity you use, it is still the same product supplied by the same people through the same pipes or cables.

You only have the illusion of choice.

I have the choice of supplier to who I pay my bills. Currently its the Co-Op a business not known for power supply. I went to them through the 38 degrees/Which magazine 'big switch' along with tens of thousands of other 38 degree supporters. My tariff for gas and electricity is much lower than any other current supplier. Each time the price goes up - I get an extra warm feeling because mine is still on a fixed rate for a fixed period in time and it still has some time to go. To you its an illusion - to me its money in my pocket. I have the choice to change my supplier or tariff if costs fall below what I am paying now.

[magictime]

I remember the good old days when the electricity industry was... a monopoly industry. Thatcher and the government of the day sold it off to create competition... therefore breaking the monopoly... The same was done with the gas supply...

 

The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) regulates the monopoly companies (there are more than one monopoly company...

 

Sorry, but I can't make head nor tail of this. Gas and electricity used to be monopoly industries; then the monopoly was broken; but they're still monopoly industries, only now there are lots of monopoly companies selling gas and electricity instead of just one?

 

Pilings marina has a connection to a CaRT controlled waterway. To find a new connection to the inland waterways they need to move the marina or alternatively they need to excavate a different access point to a different authority... Therefore CaRT is by definition a Monopoly and not subject to competition. [i hope I'm right that that's what the 'therefore' is supposed to follow on from'?]

 

It's true enough that, from the narrow perspective of Pillings Marina or a similar business, no other body is in a position to compete with the CaRT to offer access to the CaRT network. But it's not true that, from a wider perspective, the CaRT is not subject to competition. To attract potential businesses, it has to make setting up on its waterways as opposed to, say, EA waterways, a financially attractive proposition.

[adam1uk]

 

Pilings marina has a connection to a CaRT controlled waterway. To find a new connection to the inland waterways they need to move the marina or alternatively they need to excavate a different access point to a different authority. Plus its hard to be in a cartel of one. In this instance - it then falls into the remit of the monopolies commission. There are instances under BW when the monopolies commission have looked at the way BW was implementing its charging. Now as a charity, CaRT also becomes subject to the strictures of the charities commission. I imaging at some time either one of the pseudo regulators (monopolies and charity commission) will get involved. It will be interesting to see how they view the lack of competition and disparity in charging. Therefore CaRT is by definition a Monopoly and not subject to competition.

Again, your so-called monopoly situation only arose after the marina owner had voluntarily entered into a business agreement with CRT.

 

It would be like an individual boater taking a berth at Pillings Lock - and then complaining that Pillings Lock was the only option he had to pay his mooring fee to.

[Alan de Enfield]

How many more times / examples - round and round and round and rou............

 

[Mick and Maggie]

Again, your so-called monopoly situation only arose after the marina owner had voluntarily entered into a business agreement with CRT.

 

I bet that the end of your tie doesn't come anywhere near the top of your pants.

[FredDrift]

Whether or not CRT have a monopoly is not germane to anything is it.

 

Paul Lillie and his cohorts, having had every opportunity in the world to a, choose a location on any one of a number of waterways and b. to fully understand the pricing structure of his selected waterway operator chose to set up on a CRT waterway.

 

In making that choice one assumes that the terms and conditions applicable to his chosen location (regardless of whose waterway it might be) were acceptable in terms of the business plan. That must be the case as otherwise, PLM would be elsewhere.

 

CRT are absolutely right to take whatever measures they deem necessary to recover and/or mitigate their losses through bad debt. They are not operating a 'PLM' charity.

[Timleech]

 

I bet that the end of your tie doesn't come anywhere near the top of your pants.

 

??

 

Reads as though it may be a personal slight, but I don't understand it.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Timleech

[magictime]

Whether or not CRT have a monopoly is not germane to anything is it.

 

Paul Lillie and his cohorts, having had every opportunity in the world to a, choose a location on any one of a number of waterways and b. to fully understand the pricing structure of his selected waterway operator chose to set up on a CRT waterway.

 

With respect, the question of whether the CaRT have a monopoly, and the question of whether potential marina operators can choose between a number of waterways authorities when they set up their businesses, are really the same question. If there's a monopoly, there's no choice; if there's a choice, there's no monopoly. So the question about the monopoly is germane for just the same reason that your point about choice is germane.

[carlt]

 

??

 

Reads as though it may be a personal slight, but I don't understand it.

I think it must be because M&M likes to tuck his in...

[Mike Todd]

I remember the good old days when the electricity industry was a public owned business. It was a monopoly industry. Thatcher and the government of the day sold it off to create competition to reduce charges through competition. No one had to have new cables laid. No matter where you were connected within the power supply system. You could buy your electricity from any one of a number of supplier. If you become unhappy with your current supplier, you can choose another. No need to move your property, no need for new cables to be laid. Private companies can set up in business buying electricity in bulk at cheap rates which allow them to offer discount prices therefore breaking the monopoly. Thus encouraging the risk of a cartel. So there is a regulator OFGEM to keep an eye on the suppliers. To ensure they are not colluding to do a bit of price fixing. The same was done with the gas supply, No need to move your home. No new pipes needed to be laid in the ground. You did not have to choose where you are connected to the system you could choose any one of a number of suppliers. You could build a house today then be connected to the gas and electricity network and choose any of the suppliers, you can change your supplier any time you want. You don't have to lay new pipes or lay new cables or even have to move home.

 

The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) regulates the monopoly companies (there are more than one monopoly company - like there are more than waterway authority) which run the gas and electricity networks. It takes decisions on price controls and enforcement, acting in the interests of consumers.

 

Pilings marina has a connection to a CaRT controlled waterway. To find a new connection to the inland waterways they need to move the marina or alternatively they need to excavate a different access point to a different authority. Plus its hard to be in a cartel of one. In this instance - it then falls into the remit of the monopolies commission. There are instances under BW when the monopolies commission have looked at the way BW was implementing its charging. Now as a charity, CaRT also becomes subject to the strictures of the charities commission. I imaging at some time either one of the pseudo regulators (monopolies and charity commission) will get involved. It will be interesting to see how they view the lack of competition and disparity in charging. Therefore CaRT is by definition a Monopoly and not subject to competition.

A better comparison might be over water companies (not because of the similarity of product) but because locally there is no choice over supplier and also that the water company has a large environmental liability)

 

Perhaps you think that the whole system should be broken up into regional units and that boaters have to pay a separate licnce for each one they wish to visit (like CaRT and EA currently). That way can have as much competition as there is amongst the water companies.

 

Of course, it would all be much less efficient and we would have to include considerable costs for the Office of the Canal Regulator to oversee the process and to whom you could complain of you thought that you were being overcharged. And we might have a National Licensing Bureau with a complex IT system so that we can do all the separate transactions in one place. Such a scheme would also make a major contribution to reducing the level of unemployment.

 

Still want competition?

[MtB]

Whether or not CRT have a monopoly is not germane to anything is it.

 

 

Yes it is.

 

The argument goes that CRT have a monopoly on access to the canal network so the NAA is an unfair charge on marinas.

 

Apart from the monopoly quibbling, if remains to be explained by people holding this to be true why any contract freely entered into between two businesses must be fair.

 

MtB

[BEngo]

Apart from the up-front advantages of the NAA in known costs for compiling the business case for a Marina the other thing it prevents is skulduggery by CART in increasing the charges for a marina to either drive it put of business or perhaps 'encourage' its sale to BWML.

 

Whilst I agree with MtB that by itself any agreement between CART and another business only has to be as good as can agreed between the two businesses a National agreement ought to be reasonable both to the individual (because his choices are limited) and reasonable in the overall context of CART's activities. The NAA is thus fair to the marina developer, because he knows what he will get and fair to the many because it's the same for all new access to CART water.

 

I believe also that the BMIF and various other trade bodies are happy with the NAA. No doubt there will be mutterings as old agreements reach their end-date but again there will have been plenty of notice of what's coming and I haven't noticed that the old-established marinas are noticeably cheaper than the new.

 

 

N

[MtB]

And, the new marina at Cropredy must pay the NAA and it has virtually filled right up from a standing start in about four months.

 

Now why can't Pillings do that?

 

No need to answer...

 

 

MtB

[George94]

I will try one last time -- and unlike you, I won't resort to insults.

 

When anyone comes up with the idea of a marina, they can put it anywhere. They have a choice of waterways governed by several different authorities; so there is not a monopoly of supply.

 

When the new marina owner makes his choice of location, he approaches the waterways authority, and asks to be connected to their waterway. They say yes or no, and if yes, they tell him what the conditions are charges are, and he decides whether to accept them or not. How else could it be?

 

The overwhelming fact is that the marina owner had a choice about which authority to go into business alongside -- and whether to do it on their terms.

 

You've also twisted the Tesco analogy. The equivalent of the above scenario would be driving round town deciding which supermarket to go shopping in. When you've decided, to go in, you've put yourself in what you would call a monopoly situation.

 

In this debate, you have completely failed to take on board what I and many others are telling you. You have completely misused the word monopoly. You have resorted to insults. And you have dodged questions, like whether You think Glaxo should pay for using canal water in their cooling system. You should admit that you're wrong and apologise for your insults.

Didn't even bother to read it.

[carlt]

Didn't even bother to read it.

Well you've been proven wrong now by so many people in so many different ways it probably isn't worth it.

[MtB]

Didn't even bother to read it.

 

How insulting.

 

Better to have not read it and just said nothing. In my opinion you're beginning to making yourself look like an arse.

 

MtB

[Mick and Maggie]

 

The argument goes that CRT have a monopoly on access to the canal network so the NAA is an unfair charge on marinas.

 

I think you have missed the salient point of the issue. It is that some marina pay nothing and others pay a charge. The playing field is slued to favour some and disadvantage others. Being in a situation where there is no competition leads to such bizarre and unfair situations. The easy solution is to make all marina pay the same charge. A win win for CaRT.

[mayalld]

How insulting.

 

Better to have not read it and just said nothing. In my opinion you're beginning to making yourself look like an arse.

 

MtB

He isn't BEGINNING to do anything of the sort

[matty40s]

I think you have missed the salient point of the issue. It is that some marina pay nothing and others pay a charge. The playing field is slued to favour some and disadvantage others. Being in a situation where there is no competition leads to such bizarre and unfair situations. The easy solution is to make all marina pay the same charge. A win win for CaRT.

The point isnt that at all. Most of those marinas by the end of this weekend will be underwater sgain, pillings will not. ( of the EA raise the sluice....

[adam1uk]

 

I think you have missed the salient point of the issue. It is that some marina pay nothing and others pay a charge. The playing field is slued to favour some and disadvantage others. Being in a situation where there is no competition leads to such bizarre and unfair situations. The easy solution is to make all marina pay the same charge. A win win for CaRT.

 

But as has been explained, marinas which pay less, or nothing, have long standing agreements to that effect -- drawn up before the national standard agreement was introduced. Are you suggesting that CRT should tear up these agreements? And if they did, wouldn't you accuse them of abusing their position? And wouldn't it send shudders down the spines of all marina owners, because it would mean that CRT couldn't be relied on to keep other agreements.

 

It really would cause far more problems than it would solve.

[Mick and Maggie]

 

But as has been explained, marinas which pay less, or nothing, have long standing agreements to that effect -- drawn up before the national standard agreement was introduced. Are you suggesting that CRT should tear up these agreements? And if they did, wouldn't you accuse them of abusing their position? And wouldn't it send shudders down the spines of all marina owners, because it would mean that CRT couldn't be relied on to keep other agreements.

 

It really would cause far more problems than it would solve.

 

Marina owners who have to start paying can then pass the charge on to the boaters who moor in their marina. Passing the charge on to boaters happens in marinas that do pay the charge. After all, its a loss of potential valuable revenue to the Canal and River Trust to help fund repairs and maintenance. As you say, if the marinas are unhappy about the charge they can move their business.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Mick and Maggie

[adam1uk]

 

Marina owners who have to start paying can then pass the charge on to the boaters who moor in their marina. Passing the charge on to boaters happens in marinas that do pay the charge. After all, its a loss of potential valuable revenue to the Canal and River Trust to help fund repairs and maintenance. As you say, if the marinas are unhappy about the charge they can move their business.

 

But you're not concerned about the integrity of legal agreements?

[MtB]

 

Marina owners who have to start paying can then pass the charge on to the boaters who moor in their marina. Passing the charge on to boaters happens in marinas that do pay the charge. After all, its a loss of potential valuable revenue to the Canal and River Trust to help fund repairs and maintenance. As you say, if the marinas are unhappy about the charge they can move their business.

 

You say that as if it helps prove your assertion that CRT are a monopoly, but as it happens you are perfectly correct. There is nothing stopping a marina operator selling his company and buying (or building) a different marina on a waterway controlled by a different authority, should the business case be strong enough.

 

This would not be possible if the supply of waterways was controlled by a monopoly.

 

Checkmate.

 

MtB

 

MtB