5 ms·
I'm fine with having public and private companies compete for services. I'm pretty sure a government internet service would beat Comcast, and likely force all
by nickpinkston 9y ago
I'm fine with having public and private companies compete for services.
I'm pretty sure a government internet service would beat Comcast, and likely force all ISPs to up their game quickly.
Monopoly on contracts is my issue with purely a state-owned approach. Some well-run countries do seem to make it work though.
- chii 9y ago> I'm pretty sure a government internet service would beat Comcast, and likely force all ISPs to up their game quickly. the point is that if it were only a gov't service, that ISP would be just as bad as comcast. The problem is not due to it being gov't or not, but due to lack of competition!
- Tyrek 9y agoI'm not sure that this is absolutely true - in the American experience it has been a consistent experience; but in other countries there have been state owned monopolies that blow Comcast out of the water.
- chii 9y agoso what's the difference? is it the same reason as why healthcare sucks in america?
- Tyrek 9y agoRegulatory capture and ineffectual politicians. If politicians pay no heed to the civil service, the civil service has no impetus to improve.
- TomMarius 9y agoThere are some successful state-owned corporations, but it's definitely an exception to the rule.
- int_19h 9y agoCompetition is not the only feedback loop. With public companies, they're also subject to the usual democratic channels - sometimes less directly, but still. With private companies, you only get that as a shareholder, and even then in practice you have a few people holding the controlling stock.
- panic 9y agoHave there been any private but cooperatively-owned ISPs, like a credit union? That seems like another possible solution.
- briandear 9y agoGovernment would beat Comcast? I would really have to see some data before I’d be convinced of that. You must have some really strong faith in government but there is nothing in my experience that would suggest a government entity would have any incentive to actually be good at anything.
- EliRivers 9y agoI understand the US military is considered good, and not just because it's huge and has a lot of money to spend. I'm told the competence of the individuals involved tends to be higher than many other militaries. Sure, it's just one data point.
- lmm 9y agoComparing to other national militaries isn't meaningful. How does their effectiveness compare to private companies that do the same kind of thing, e.g. Blackwater or whatever they're called now?
- ionised 9y agoWell, there is a reason Blackwater changed its name.
- sharemywin 9y agoMost mercenaries are usually formally trained by an elite government military.
- EliRivers 9y agoUS government military is so much better. Skill fade is brutal. The US military spends a fortune training and exercising and refreshing and retraining, over and over. Mercenary companies simply don't have the funding or facilities to do the same. Typically, the employees are contractors. Some of them might still be in date for some of their professional qualifications, some of them might be years or even decades from their last professional military refresher. I'm sure they can get by swapping tips and visiting gunranges, but it can't compare to spending nine months of the year on exercise or deployment.
- pyroinferno 9y agoI hate Comcast as much as the next guy, but I would never choose a government service over them. There is only a few things the government is competent at and one of those is war. But even that is being hugely supported by private companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
- nradov 9y agoHow many wars has the government won lately?