Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
What it was sold for was not what it would have cost to replicate, or cost to even build in the first place. No one would have paid that, and if it was left to a private business to build a competing network they would NEVER give it the coverage BT's has, they'd cherry pick the most profitable areas (just look at VM's coverage).
That is why it was opened up, not because it was specifically built with public money, but because without public money a huge amount of it would never have been built as it would never have been profitable. It is the network that makes BT a monopoly. They are the only company that has, or will ever have, a network that reaches 99.99% of the population, and they only have that because it was built with public money.
|
What your talking about is sellers regret, something that cannot bee used as an excuse for tighter legislation, as it would make life very difficalt for the government should they need to engange the city again (remember the railtrack disaster) and would proberlly bee illegal.
Alough there main bee some element of sellers regret in the regulation of BT's monopoly. for the most part its purely about preventing a company abusing its monopoly. Something that is very common (we even have a specific government department with very wide reaching powers to prevent private company's abusing its donamint market position (the competition (commission (formally the less powerful monopoly's and mergers commission)).
Also remember as i said before the majority of skys network infructure was also build with public funds (astra).