4 ms·

That's an argument for a small government. Private entities are both much faster than current governments, and more careful with their money. And when they fail

That's an argument for a small government. Private entities are both much faster than current governments, and more careful with their money. And when they fail, you basically get free infrastructure (as part of the bankruptcy process) instead of a black hole in which public money keeps getting sunk. Reading the rest of the comments in this thread it seems like the original decision was at the very least sane: you need major investment in telecom infrastructure, and to facilitate this the government offered a monopoly to incentivize said investment. Makes sense, at face value. Problem is that technology advanced, and now a centralized solution is worse than the state of the art (Starlink). So instead of the infrastructure provider living or dying on merit, you have regulations sustaining it artificially, and no incentive to have them upgrade or become more efficient.

watwut 2y ago
Country with no or failing public school or no or failing public Healthcare looks just like a failed state. And about none of them has overall good conditions, except for the richest.
derbOac 2y ago
I'm not sure private entities are more careful with their money. More importantly, it's their money, it doesn't necessarily flow back to the public. The danger is in monopoly. Then you're left with no choice and also no vote. At least with public infrastructure you have a vote. The situation in the Falklands sounds like a mess, and I'm not faulting anyone for using Starlink in those circumstances. But I suspect if the island becomes dependent on Starlink they will find themselves with other problems later. These private-public arguments are misguided IMHO because the real issue is choice versus monopoly. Public services provide choice to those who might not have it otherwise, and give a nonmonetary mechanism for feedback. But they can become monopolies as well. Private services can provide options but when they become monopolies you have no options for feedback other than to withdraw from the service, which sometimes isn't a real option. Also, the moneys aren't necessarily redistributed back to the community, which can be an opportunity cost.

watwut 2y ago

Country with no or failing public school or no or failing public Healthcare looks just like a failed state. And about none of them has overall good conditions, except for the richest.

derbOac 2y ago

I'm not sure private entities are more careful with their money. More importantly, it's their money, it doesn't necessarily flow back to the public. The danger is in monopoly. Then you're left with no choice and also no vote. At least with public infrastructure you have a vote. The situation in the Falklands sounds like a mess, and I'm not faulting anyone for using Starlink in those circumstances. But I suspect if the island becomes dependent on Starlink they will find themselves with other problems later. These private-public arguments are misguided IMHO because the real issue is choice versus monopoly. Public services provide choice to those who might not have it otherwise, and give a nonmonetary mechanism for feedback. But they can become monopolies as well. Private services can provide options but when they become monopolies you have no options for feedback other than to withdraw from the service, which sometimes isn't a real option. Also, the moneys aren't necessarily redistributed back to the community, which can be an opportunity cost.