A counter example. - Australia Post is a government owned entity. - Australia Post has a universal service obligation. - Australia Post is allowed to sell wh

A counter example. - Australia Post is a government owned entity. - Australia Post has a universal service obligation. - Australia Post is allowed to sell whatever it damned well pleases. - But, it has a monopoly on only one thing, letters. - The combination of universal service obligation is a liability of course, but being able to sell whatever it damned well pleases ameliorates it somewhat. Many firms (like banks) farmed out otherwise unprofitable branch functions to Post Offices. - Australia Post is, and as far as I know has always been profitable. From what I can tell, the idea that a government run entity is more poorly run than a private one is myth. If the area has open competition, and the government run business makes a profit (this is generally the case in Australia), then it really makes no difference if it's privately run or government owned. Differences only arise in non-competitive environments. A monopoly owned privately owned business charges like a rent seeking wounded bull. A subsidised government run business could destroy more efficiently run private equivalents, but can be a fine balance - it can also be a way to efficiently subsidise a service that was never going to be supplied privately. Doing it by subsidising private operators is equally fraught - regulatory capture is a thing, privately owned prisons being a poster child for what can go wrong.