On 04/01/12 23:55, Ross wrote:
That was a very interesting post, Wolfgang, especially for someone who
has only ever known post-reunification Berlin. Thank you for taking
the time and making the effort to post it.

Seconded. That was fascinating. Doesn't it all seem a long time ago now?

Ian

On 04/01/12 21:41, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
I think Hungary was similar.

As I recall it East Germans could travel to Hungary, and as things
started changing they could travel from there to Austria. Tens of
thousands started doing so, the DDR government asked the Hungarians to
stop them[1], the Hungarians refused and at that point the wall became
pointless.

Ian

[1] Previously the DDR government had paid a bonus to Bulgarian border
guards every time they shot and killed and East German trying to
emigrate. I don't know if they made the same kind offer to Hungarians.

On Jan 5, 9:26*am, The Real Doctor wrote:

[1] Previously the DDR government had paid a bonus to Bulgarian border
guards every time they shot and killed and East German trying to
emigrate. I don't know if they made the same kind offer to Hungarians.

Luko, do you have a comment on that? Did the DDR encourage the
shooting of its own citizens for the "crime" of wishing to leave the
workers' paradise? To make it easy for you:

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Everyone is a liar, and I have a clever riposte which avoids
saying Yes or No, which will be so impressive that everyone will think
I'm a fantastic intellectual and quite forget my inability to answer
simple "yes" or "no" questions.

On Jan 4, 11:51*pm, Ross wrote:

In any case, the Germans seem to consider DB AG to be "privatised",
where we would (in layman's terms) say it is a "nationalised company"
or possibly that it has been "vested as a trading company" if we were
trying to be clever (and that's probably the wrong description anyway,
so we wouldn't be being that clever!).

That sounds about right to me - unfortunately Lueko won't seem to
accept the difference, and instead insists that he and only he is
right.

So it seems that in the UK what matters is who owns it, whereas in
Germany what matters is what structure is used to define its
ownership. Each to their own, I suppose.

Neil

On Jan 3, 12:28*am, Lüko Willms wrote:
The Wessies detested the free travel across the Berlin wall...


Hang on, let's get this straight. There was free travel across the
Berlin wall? Is that what you are saying? That anyone from the East
could, without let or hindrance, cross and re-cross the wall at any
time? So what was the wall for, then? Why did people get shot
crossing it at night, if they could cross it freely whenever they
wanted?

ian

In message , at 18:57:01 on
Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Charles Ellson remarked:
Most of the fall in costs has been due to competition, and facilitated
by new technology. Where there's no competition, the new technology is
still expensive.

Nonsense.

I refer the Hon Gent to remarks made about international roaming charges
(as just one example).

The word "cartel" very likely features.

I'm not so sure, because if one carrier reduced their rates I'm not sure
it would produce a flood of migrating customers (who mainly look at
domestic call costs).

Roaming charges are one of many activities on a mobile phone where the
cost of straying off a bundled package is extremely high. For example
one of my phones comes with 800 minutes a month, which represents less
than 2p/minute even if I send no bundled texts. But the 801th and
subsequent minutes cost 40p each. On a data bundle (different SIM) I get
20MB/data for 20p, but the 21st and subsequent MB cost an extra 20p
*each*.

MMS is another example - rarely bundled, and priced way above (typically
30p) what that amount of connectivity would cost within your bundle.

This form of pricing is endemic, and the operators clearly make lots of
money when these bear traps are triggered. They've all decided to do it
like this independently, not in consort.
--
Roland Perry

"Neil Williams" wrote in message

On Jan 4, 11:51 pm, Ross wrote:

In any case, the Germans seem to consider DB AG to be "privatised",
where we would (in layman's terms) say it is a "nationalised company"
or possibly that it has been "vested as a trading company" if we were
trying to be clever (and that's probably the wrong description
anyway, so we wouldn't be being that clever!).

That sounds about right to me - unfortunately Lueko won't seem to
accept the difference, and instead insists that he and only he is
right.

So it seems that in the UK what matters is who owns it, whereas in
Germany what matters is what structure is used to define its
ownership. Each to their own, I suppose.

I wonder what Lüko would think if DB AG was indeed freely traded, and
some shadowy Ukrainian billionaire, who liked trains more than yachts,
tried to buy a controlling interest. Would Lüko still think that
ownership didn't matter? And would the German government allow it
(judging by VW, the answer is "no")?

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
news
"Paul Rigg" wrote
in :

I am quite sure that Friedrichstraße was the only East Berlin
S-Bahn
station where one could buy S-Bahn tickets towards West Berlin in
DM. And only in the "non-socialist currency" area, i.e. the area
which acted as an exchange station for intra West Berlin traffic.

I saw them on the machine at Kopenick.

Until 1984 the DR treated the S-Bahn system basically as one, despite
the wall. Tickets from East to West Berlin were just another fare
within the system, "Preisstufe 10" ("fare level 10"). The network
diagrams they published showed the entire city and were the same on
both sides. This is the last one from 1983:

http://www.schmalspurbahn.de/netze/Netz_1983_klein.gif

It's quite an interesting design too. While it pays reference to the
official party nomenclature ("Berlin" for East Berlin, "Westberlin"
without a hyphen - Lüko uses that in his posts -, the wall designated
as "international border", ghost stations not depicted etc.), it goes
against the party line to an extent. Otherwhise East German
publications would carefully avoid any hint of commonalities between
East and West, while this one not only shows both sides as one, but
the design clearly suggests to the viewer which lines were severed by
the wall and ought to be re-joined. Quite remarkable IMHO.

Likewhise the West Berlin BVG used to print U-Bahn maps showing the
entire system:

http://www.schmalspurbahn.de/netze/Netz_1983BVG.jpg

In 1984 BVG took over the operation of the S-Bahn in West Berlin,
since then the diagrams in East and West have integrated U-Bahn and
S-Bahn into one map, but tended to show their halves of the city only:

http://www.schmalspurbahn.de/netze/Netz_1984_klein.gif
http://www.schmalspurbahn.de/netze/N...4BVG_klein.gif

The Western map still pays symbolic tribute to East Berlin, but the
fact that there's a transport network there is merely hinted.

The first diagram of U-Bahn and S-Bahn of the entire city was
published in december 1989:

http://www.wschwanke.de/tmp/berlin_198912_usbahn_B.jpg

Obviously based on the BVG diagram, the lines in the east had been
hastily added, without distinction what line belonged to what system
and with a lot of errors. Still this diagram was iconic, as it was the
first showing the entire city with both systems. We'd never seen that
before. The current diagram is evolved from that one.

I'd like to join the others in thanking you for posting that fascinating
information. I was in Berlin last month, using the U and S-Bahns for the
first time in many years, and really wish I'd read up first on what
happened during the Wall years. Now, it's hard to spot even where the
Wall once stood (apart from obvious preserved remnants), and where the
S-Bahn lines were severed for decades. It's worth following long,
winding threads like this for the occasional, unexpected gems of useful
info.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 11:03:55 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
Roaming charges are one of many activities on a mobile phone where the
cost of straying off a bundled package is extremely high. For example
one of my phones comes with 800 minutes a month, which represents less
than 2p/minute even if I send no bundled texts. But the 801th and
subsequent minutes cost 40p each. On a data bundle (different SIM) I get
20MB/data for 20p, but the 21st and subsequent MB cost an extra 20p
*each*.

MMS is another example - rarely bundled, and priced way above (typically
30p) what that amount of connectivity would cost within your bundle.

This form of pricing is endemic, and the operators clearly make lots of
money when these bear traps are triggered. They've all decided to do it
like this independently, not in consort.

If you're so addicted to the online world that you need to be connected 24/7
via your phone instead of waiting until you get to a PC then you'll just have
to suck it up won't you. If operators want to part fools from their money
then good luck to them.

B2003

Am 04.01.2012 14:33, schrieb Graeme Wall:

Lüko, you are aware that 1984 was fiction?

Sure, one of the best novels of the past century. Strongly based on
the coming reality.

Orwell knew what he was writing about.



Cheers,
L.W.