Message from @faultfiction
Discord ID: 687971804169502759
Nationalise BT again
That wouldn't actually solve the problem
In fact, if you speak to anyone over the age of.. say 50.. you'll find it was equally as bad, throughout it's existence, if not worse, when it was nationalised
Yes true but do you believe the level of investment that is needed to bring it up to proper service can be provided by BT?
Yes
wrong
Not wrong
My broken broadband could have been fixed on the first engineers visit
Today will be my fourth
This is massive inefficiency
but you should live with it
and wait for them to do it
Caused by faulty processes
Inadequate oversight
sounds like companies problem
Nope
who's is it then
Of course i live with it and wait for them to do it - i don't have any choice
It's BT's problem
Like I just said
did you not read this?
company, not companies
but it would still be the same problem were it a public body
the problem is not the method of ownership
the problem is shit people making shit decisions
there is no systemic solution to this
let me give you an example of how incompetent private companies are. When BT was part privatised in the 80s, they did a report on the efficiency of copper wires. They realised it was quite bad for digital communication and very unreliable. They set up a fibre optic implementation program and two companies to manufacture parts and components and they found that fibre optic was cheaper than copper implementation
guess what they went with?
Companies don't have the investment capacity to invest and widen their service base. Governments can do it
Historical errors of judgement notwithstanding
You seem to apply the logic of shit people making shit decision but you can't apply to governments? even though governments have better implementation processes
Doesn't fix my bad broadband
and the capacity
You're defeating an argument I haven't made
In fact, you're acknowledging the argument I made, then claiming I said the opposite
okay tell me then, why did BT went ahead with copper when fibre was cheaper?
cos it was cheaper to continue with copper than invest in fibre
to use the existing infrastructure and continue with a shit service
do you think the government does the same with the NHS?
I do acknowledge your argument but you're wrong to assume that private companies would rather provide a better service when they can rely on existing infrastructure and still get paid than upgrade it at cost