[kaczordon]

So as long as the government does it it’s ok as long as the government doesn’t do it incorrectly? Therein lies the problem, governmental failure is always a possibility as Milton Friedman observed, and if they fail there’s no penalty to failing other than the size of government increasing :) Even in America the issue is that we’ve over-regulated the internet industry to the point where even a company like Google has issues, although one could argue they did it for different reasons i.e. to force the existing companies to lay down fiber faster. Regulatory capture is the real issue.

[bigbob2]

This entire discussion is about privately held organizations systematically charging customers for services they did not receive with no oversight to prevent it. Your argument doesn't even make sense in this context.

[tw25485966]

Some would argue that those "privately held organizations" are able to avoid market pressures via regulatory capture, if not outright grants of monopoly by governments.

If you want to argue that a government-granted public monopoly is better for consumers than a government-granted private monopoly, I'd be inclined to agree. But there are other options that might be better still for consumers, which is what I think the above poster was trying to get at.

[kaczordon]

Yeah you summed it up better than I did.