CART connection charge

[Charles]

Bridgewater-West Country?

[matty40s]

EA - Becketts Parl Marina Northampton.....(sorry Rich)

[George94]

Fair enough. I shall just advise Mr Lillie to move the marina to another waterway. No problem, I am sure.

 

What's that? The other waterway is a monopoly too?

 

The fact is, chaps, that Pillings is able to find alternative suppliers for any service is requires - phones, painting, Range Rovers, digging, horse-meat - but NOT for canal access.

 

That's what makes it a monopoly. Now, you can posture all you like, but that's the facts.

[Jerra]

Fair enough. I shall just advise Mr Lillie to move the marina to another waterway. No problem, I am sure.

 

What's that? The other waterway is a monopoly too?

 

The fact is, chaps, that Pillings is able to find alternative suppliers for any service is requires - phones, painting, Range Rovers, digging, horse-meat - but NOT for canal access.

 

That's what makes it a monopoly. Now, you can posture all you like, but that's the facts.

When they decided to build the marina they had a choice of supplier, just as they had for phones etc. The only difference is it is a once and for all decision unlike the other examples you quote.

 

So when they chose who would supply them access to a navigable waterway they were not having to choose a monoploy.

[Alan de Enfield]

Granted now he is where he is it is a 'monopoly' - however when he was looking to build the marina he could have built it anywhere and come under the 'control' of any one of a number of waterway 'monopolies'

 

Lets try another example - The local councils have varying scales for Council Tax (a band C charge in London is not the same charge as a band C in Sunderland).

 

You can choose to build your house in a 'low tarrif' Council tax area, or you can build it where you want but you pay the 'going rate' for Council Tax in that area, as the LA has a 'monopoly' in that area.

 

Edit - Jerra doesnt have 'fat finger syndrome' that slows me down, but we do agree.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[adam1uk]

Fair enough. I shall just advise Mr Lillie to move the marina to another waterway. No problem, I am sure.

 

What's that? The other waterway is a monopoly too?

 

The fact is, chaps, that Pillings is able to find alternative suppliers for any service is requires - phones, painting, Range Rovers, digging, horse-meat - but NOT for canal access.

 

That's what makes it a monopoly. Now, you can posture all you like, but that's the facts.

 

Only in your world can there be two monopolies. In everyone else's world, the existence of two providers is the exact definition of not-a-monopoly.

 

If the owner doesn't like CRT, he can sell up and buy a marina which is under another navigation authority. There are plenty to choose from.

 

Edit: and I think you'll find that all Range Rovers come from JLR. They have a monopoly on them.

Edited January 29, 2014 by adam1uk

[Alan de Enfield]

Definition of 'Duopoly'

 

A situation in which two companies own all or nearly all of the market for a given product or service. A duopoly is the most basic form of oligopoly, a market dominated by a small number of companies. A duopoly can have the same impact on the market as a monopoly if the two players collude on prices or output. Collusion results in consumers paying higher prices than they would in a truly competitive market

[adam1uk]

Bridgewater-West Country?

 

The west country one has no e -- it's the Bridgwater. And I think it's actually a CRT waterway, although the local council and others helped restore it.

[RLWP]

Isn't Oligopoly a wonderful word

 

Richard

[MtB]

Isn't Oligopoly a wonderful word

 

Richard

 

Yes.

 

My current fave though is 'vainglorious'...

 

 

MtB

[Stilllearning]

 

Yes.

 

My current fave though is 'vainglorious'...

 

 

MtB

At the risk of going off topic, how about floccinaucinihilipilification, a wonderful word. Not one I use very often, but still fun.

[MtB]

At the risk of going off topic, how about floccinaucinihilipilification, a wonderful word. Not one I use very often, but still fun.

 

I can't even pronounce that...

 

I picked vainglorious as some might say it applies to the main protagonist of the debacle this thread is about.

 

Quite like 'protagonist' too actually!

 

 

MtB

[Stilllearning]

 

I can't even pronounce that...

 

I picked vainglorious as some might say it applies to the main protagonist of the debacle this thread is about.

 

Quite like 'protagonist' too actually!

 

 

MtB

And flocci...etc means of little or no worth, which is how I feel about certain people at the centre of this whole sorry affair.

[MtB]

And flocci...etc means of little or no worth, which is how I feel about certain people at the centre of this whole sorry affair.

 

Oh, I thought it sounded like some sort of beer or wine clarifying process!

 

Or debt clarifying perhaps....

 

MtB

[LoneWolf]

And flocci...etc means of little or no worth, which is how I feel about certain people at the centre of this whole sorry affair.

 

i thought it meant the act of estimating something to be of little or no worth

 

 

So it would refer to what you think of George's posts rather than referring to the posts themselves

[Stilllearning]

 

Oh, I thought it sounded like some sort of beer or wine clarifying process!

 

Or debt clarifying perhaps....

 

MtB

If the debt situation was clarified or even better cleared, the word would be miraculous.

[Willber G]

I'll go for "con" which may turn out to be appropriate in more ways than one.

[George94]

Only in your world can there be two monopolies. In everyone else's world, the existence of two providers is the exact definition of not-a-monopoly.

 

If the owner doesn't like CRT, he can sell up and buy a marina which is under another navigation authority. There are plenty to choose from.

 

Edit: and I think you'll find that all Range Rovers come from JLR. They have a monopoly on them.

 

Adam, as your brain doesn't appear to work, I shall not trouble it with any further questions.

 

But, lest you feel my remark is unjust, the world can have many monopolies. Each waterway is a separate monopoly. And where Tesco, for instance, is the only supermarket for miles around, it too enjoys a degree of monopoly power for that reason.

 

Sorry for burdening you with facts. I won't do it again..

[adam1uk]

Adam, as your brain doesn't appear to work, I shall not trouble it with any further questions.

 

But, lest you feel my remark is unjust, the world can have many monopolies. Each waterway is a separate monopoly. And where Tesco, for instance, is the only supermarket for miles around, it too enjoys a degree of monopoly power for that reason.

 

Sorry for burdening you with facts. I won't do it again..

 

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.

[carlt]

 

 

 

Sorry for burdening you with facts. I won't do it again..

You are actually burdening us with nonsense.

 

The monopoly situation only occurs at the point of choosing to purchase, not when you have chosen to commit yourself to one supplier.

 

By your logic, once Mr Lillie (P) has bought his Range Rover then the manufacturer becomes a monopoly until he sells it and chooses to buy another brand just as he chose CRT as his waterway provider until he decides to break his contract with them and goes and does something else.

 

He has chosen not to pay his bills so has chosen to stop being a customer of CRT...he has broken the "monopoly" (in your mind) and is now free to open a marina anywhere he likes (though his new supplier would be crazy to make themselves a "monopoly" over someone with such interesting business practices).

 

If the rules were as you think they are the Competitions Commission would be swamped with people claiming that every business transaction formed a "micro-monopoly".

[mayalld]

 

So who else is able to supply access to the canal?

 

The environment agency. PL could have connected his marina to their waters instead.

[Richard Fairhurst]

The fact is, chaps, that Pillings is able to find alternative suppliers for any service is requires - phones, painting, Range Rovers, digging, horse-meat - but NOT for canal access.

 

That's what makes it a monopoly. Now, you can posture all you like, but that's the facts.

 

I'm really not convinced those are the facts, you know.

 

Pillings Lock is on a river navigation with canal sections. The navigation authority for the main waterway is the Canal & River Trust. However, their rights are less on the river sections of the navigation (because they're not the riparian owner); and, inevitably, there are 'backwater' sections of river where their writ does not run.

 

It is plausible that Pillings Lock's access could have been cut into a river section where no CRT access charge would apply.

 

This is exactly the situation on the Kennet, another CRT-controlled navigation with canal and river sections. Frouds Bridge Marina gives out into the Kennet, off the main navigation; and as a result, they don't pay a connection charge. CRT couldn't block this backwater off if they wanted to; the Environment Agency would consider it an obstruction when the river's in flood.

 

Had the proprietors of PLM chosen to build their marina elsewhere on the Soar, and obtained permission from the Environment Agency (as flood/drainage authority, from whom permission must be obtained for works within n metres of a main river), they could have potentially enjoyed this NAA-free arrangement. Of course, their moorers would then have been stuck inside at times of flood.

[Mike Todd]

Interesting that you do not make the point that Smithkline should get this for free as the water according to you has no value.

 

By the way the water coming out of the building back into the canal only raises the very local area of the canal by single digit degrees as I understand it.

Quite so. The Llangollen of course with its water pumped up from the Dee carrys many millions of tons of water for domestic use (once cleaned up) further downstream

And in other cases to take it?Like from sewage works outfalls?

[matty40s]

I'm really not convinced those are the facts, you know.

 

Pillings Lock is on a river navigation with canal sections. The navigation authority for the main waterway is the Canal & River Trust. However, their rights are less on the river sections of the navigation (because they're not the riparian owner); and, inevitably, there are 'backwater' sections of river where their writ does not run.

 

It is plausible that Pillings Lock's access could have been cut into a river section where no CRT access charge would apply.

 

This is exactly the situation on the Kennet, another CRT-controlled navigation with canal and river sections. Frouds Bridge Marina gives out into the Kennet, off the main navigation; and as a result, they don't pay a connection charge. CRT couldn't block this backwater off if they wanted to; the Environment Agency would consider it an obstruction when the river's in flood.

 

Had the proprietors of PLM chosen to build their marina elsewhere on the Soar, and obtained permission from the Environment Agency (as flood/drainage authority, from whom permission must be obtained for works within n metres of a main river), they could have potentially enjoyed this NAA-free arrangement. Of course, their moorers would then have been stuck inside at times of flood.

As opposed to being stuck inside forever after April 14th....

[magictime]

 

Adam, as your brain doesn't appear to work, I shall not trouble it with any further questions.

 

But, lest you feel my remark is unjust, the world can have many monopolies. Each waterway is a separate monopoly. And where Tesco, for instance, is the only supermarket for miles around, it too enjoys a degree of monopoly power for that reason.

 

Sorry for burdening you with facts. I won't do it again..

 

Let me try a different tack, George94, by sidestepping the terminological dispute here and addressing the substance of the issue without using the 'm' word.

 

The UK's inland waterways are run by various different navigation authorities, with the CaRT being the largest. In some areas of the country (e.g. Yorkshire), the CaRT runs almost all of the navigable waterways. In other areas (e.g. East Anglia), it doesn't run any of them. But in mahy areas, it is in direct competition (in terms of attracting potential moorers, marina operators etc.) with other navigation authorities. Take a look at this map:

 

http://www.aina.org.uk/docs/96918GBWaterways_4.pdf

 

- and you can see the CaRT faces a certain amount of competition in the North West from the Bridgewater Canal Company, and a certain amount in the West Midlands from the Avon Navigation Trust. More significantly, however, many popular CaRT waterways towards the south and east of its network - e.g. the Oxford Canal, the Grand Union, the Kennet & Avon - are close to the Thames and/or the Nene, putting in direct competition with the EA in those areas.

 

If the NAA fee (as a percentage of the price of an occupied mooring) varied from region to region - being higher in areas where the CaRT faces less competition and lower in areas where it faces more competition - there might be a case for saying that the CaRT's dominant position in the marketplace in the former areas was allowing it to get away with charging excessive fees. But as I understand it, that is not the case. The fee has been set nationally at a level that is intended to make running a marina on a CaRT waterway a financially attractive proposition even for someone who could run a marina on a nearby EA waterway - say, on the Thames rather than the Grand Union.

 

So while it's true that the owner of a marina on a CaRT waterway has no real choice but to pay whatever fee the CaRT demand in return for access to that waterway, it does not follow that a lack of competition means the CaRT can get away with charging whatever fee it likes. The level at which it sets its fee is constrained by the need to compete for the business of marina operators with other navigation authorities, running other waterways.