You need to learn more about the free market and a little history.
When I was in second grade, many moons ago; i.e., 1950s, a phone company representative came to my classroom and showed us a mockup of a wireless phone. This was touted to be available in the near future. After 10 years wireless had not been introduced.
In high school, during the 1960s, I learned about how markets operate and I learned that the phone company had a monopoly granted by the state. It occurred to me then that wireless phones would never be developed by Ma Bell, because the wiring was the only thing that justified their monopoly status!
Low and behold, AFTER the phone monopoly was broken up, two things occurred: long distance phone rates dropped significantly due to competition AND wireless phone networks developed.
Now, being an electrical engineer, I realize that certain technologies required for wireless phones did not exist during the 50’s and 60’s, but my point is that the monopoly holding phone company had NO incentive to develop the technology. I doubt that Bell Labs, who touted some of the finest talent in the country, would have ever come up with the cell system we have today.
Now for the application: Why turn over ANY utility to the government where it is guaranteed to (1) stagnate and (2) be subject to needless overhead.
The gubmint came up with the internet and GPS. Private industry optimized both. Likewise, it was gubmint that helped grow the transistor business in the 1950s. There is room for both gubmint and private involvement. It isn’t an all or nothing deal.
> You need to learn more about the free market and a little history.
Wireless communication would have happened whether Ma Bell ran a monopoly or not.
Good response on turning over ANY utility to the government where it is guaranteed to
(1) stagnate and (2) be subject to needless overhead.
Ma Bell is the perfect example of what we now see in Europe and a lot of Progressive anti-capitalism but really nothing more than a Socialist-Monopolistic and increasingly Fascist economic arrangement.
True - look how much work is involved in establishing land-line phone service at a new residence even today, and the technology used is antique. Without market pressures, we would all still be using party-line phones...or Morse Code over a telegraph. ;)
Still, city-wide "free" WiMax service (when it's ready) wouldn't be a bad idea - beats spending the same tax dollars on paying new homeless people to come live in the city, as San Francisco is doing. It's sort of like paying the bill for street lights, the city didn't and couldn't have helped invent the technology involved, but it's a reasonable use of tax dollars to provide the service to the public.