Where it only makes sense to build one of some piece of infrastructure, isn't it really obvious that it should always be owned by the people? I suspect that thi

Where it only makes sense to build one of some piece of infrastructure, isn't it really obvious that it should always be owned by the people? I suspect that this applies to quite a few things: cable data networks, wireless data networks (phone masts), electricity transmission grid, railway lines, roads, etc. Historically, national infrastructure seems to tend towards becoming a monopoly anyway under private ownership. Further, when these are privately owned, we seem to end up with a lumbering private company regulated by a lumbering state bureaucracy which duplicates a large part of the accounts department of the private company to keep them in check. This means that we have the worst of both worlds; no real choice, patchy service, high prices for the service and a whole load of hidden regulatory costs which come out of our taxes. Anecdotally, I've consulted for a state regulated privately owned monopoly company, there is no way that private sector efficiency is driving these places, the bureaucracy is intense. Example: A decision from the company on whether it was acceptable to use a different, cheaper but better looking style of suspended ceiling took 6 months and went all the way to the board of directors of this multi billion pound company.