3 ms·
> Why, though? Why would they be worse? Typically, when you have even two competitors, the quality is improved. > Typically, when you have even two competitors
by orangeoxidation 5y ago
> Why, though? Why would they be worse? Typically, when you have even two competitors, the quality is improved.
> Typically, when you have even two competitors, the quality is improved.
If those state services weren't available for the public they would exist anyway, they are primarily for military purpose.
Imagine the US didn't offer free GPS and civilian competition would arise. Wouldn't it just mean the US users would have to pay for two satellite services? Once for the military one, once for the civilian. Since cost does not increase with users, the military (tax supported) one wouldn't be cheaper to run either.
Apart from that there are competitors even today. My smartphone does connect to Galileo, Glonass and GPS.
- xyzzyz 5y agoIn that world, military would just contract with commercial providers and use commercial GPS, same way they already spend hundreds of billions of dollars on products and services provided by private companies.
- jppittma 5y agoI can't imagine how one would think that's better than the current situation. Military contracts with commercial providers are an absolute nightmare. Is this not what even libertarians denounce as "crony capitalism?"
- xyzzyz 5y agoMost of technology procurement that military does is through commercial providers. This means that if there is a nightmare project, it will most likely be a done with a commercial partner, because most projects are done with commercial partners. On the other hand, there are plenty military contracts with commercial businesses which aren’t nightmares. For example, US military has a contract with Samsung for mobile devices. It is most definitely not a nightmare. Government buying from private businesses is no what “crony capitalism” means.