I'm sad to say that on page 5 of the discussion and I've still not seen any evidence that privatisation lowers prices in the UK market. Though it has seemed to in the past.
BT was used as a positive example but I'm not sure I even believe that. Back in 1998 I was contracted out to BT and having a chat with one of the senior managers he claimed that, had the company stayed public, they had been looking at free local calls, which of course the US has had for a very long time, but when they were privatised offcomm wouldn't let them offer it because no one would be able to compete. Now we do have a a few, a very few companies who offer free local calls, but its 14 years later. I appreciate this is anecdotal evidence at best but the guy was very high up and had no reason to lie to me.
So what do we think screws this up in the UK. Or doesn't the model work anywhere?
I suppose the problem you're having is that price is one factor but there are those who tend to measure the service quality just as much.
A purely conservative view would see a sacrifice in service worth having because there's always someone else out there desperate enough to offer the same price for a short term increase in service quality. So you just hop around. I think broadband is a good example of this but also a good example of privatisation being a massive con. 20mbs - who gets that? We pay for it but get 0.5mbs unless you log on at midnight.
A socialist would look for the social reward. In the above example, we all get broadband realistically priced. For the level of quality we actually receive, a nationalised industry would add more value to society.
If the government would have allowed private industry to invest in telecoms to add new technologies and then compete with the nationalised sector we may have had a much broader more competitive array of services in telecoms. You could argue that this is what we have with the Post Office.
Edited by Ackroman, 23 October 2012 - 10:06 AM.