Quote Originally Posted by Hobbit View Post
I'm guessing that they're a monopoly and that there's not a competing public transportation system in the same city? The system may now be privately owned, but it's still a government-enforced monopoly. Good find, though. I'll give you that. Still, it's more like the old Bell System in the U.S. than true private enterprise. The Bell System was privately owned, but the government made sure that it was the ONLY phone company. The phones sucked. The lines sucked. It was really expensive. Etc. etc.
You're right, it's a government-enforced monopoly. Good point. I believe govt calls for tenders. Personally I think it's a dumb idea in a situation where there's no natural competition. The state govt should simply take it back, corporatise it and hold its management accountable for performance.


Quote Originally Posted by Hobbit:
It still wasn't government doing it. Most university research was privately, not publicly funded, unlike now, where there's so many government grants that just about everybody has one. I also take it that they, uh, sold their little invention to the public, rather than just handing it over to the government for distribution?
In the UK back then there were no private universities, they were government-funded. I believe that research became the property of the university and then the government, but I can't be totally sure about that.