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

> sounds like companies problem
@faultfiction

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

Whether or not, in theory, private companies would do better than public is irrelevent.

In this case, both BT as a private company, and GPO (as publically owned BT) are/were abject failures

And given it is a monolithic infrastructure, there is little or no scope, that I can see, for a market-driven fix

It's proven that government bodies operating large infrastructure do better than private companies because of the access to a) power of legislation b) capital