The old government nationalized railroads and private roads for this exact reason. When a utility becomes embedded into and it’s needed to even function in society, it needs to be nationalized.
Regulatory capture has made that near impossible now. At least crypto throws another challenger in the ring and can give people and businesses an, albeit inferior, alternative.
Japan famously privatized it's trains/subways. They're now considered best in the world. They appear to have made it a positive feedback loop by letting the train companies own land and business near tracks so that over time, every station is a mini shopping center owned by the train company. Several train companies also run grocery stores at nearly every station. Some run office buildings, department stores, and apartments near the stations. All this means more riders and more riders = more customers for the other business.
This type of company owned adjacent property is not legal in most countries, as it is akin to riders largely existing in a company owned town where said company can extract significantly more rent from each rider than they otherwise would, distorting the market to hurt competition.
It doesn't seem to have hurt Japan and I'm not sure it's the same. The train company doesn't own the entire town so it's not remotely the same as "company owned town". Even if the train station owns a grocery store there are 4 others in the same neighborhood run by other companies. Same with office buildings, apartments, etc....
Also, regional ice cream sales in coastal areas correlate directly with shark attacks. Japan has the best because they see it as a first-class transportation system. America thinks public transit is a D-list expenditure, at best. Now we have D-list service quality, at best. Post-privatized UK bus systems, London aside, are a joke. Being public might not have changed that, but it sure didn't stop it. Boston's public transit is a joke, but improving. Same with their privatized regional rail service. The company took years to get enough snow removal equipment to not cancel dozens of trains in heavy snow. In Boston.
I'm not sure trading three owners for one public one is the right direction to go, particularly since there are few limits to the number of providers that could be operating in this space.
The article points this out, too, that it's incredibly expensive and difficult to start a new network from the ground up. This sounds like the thing you actually want to fix.
Yes, realistically, it's not possible at this point. Ideally, it should be done so users have some sort of recourse. Visa/MC can straight up ban you from processing payments without rhyme or reason while they hide behind KYC/AML laws. The government can't hide behind these laws.
I think cheap and ubiquitous internet access has changed the game here significantly and it seems far easier to bring new products and technologies into the merchant space than it ever has been before.
> Visa/MC can straight up ban you from processing payments without rhyme or reason while they hide behind KYC/AML law
Yes, but if you had a dozen other providers to turn to, this may not be an issue, and may force the established players to have a more transparent policy.
> The government can't hide behind these laws.
I would consider the "No Fly List" as a terrifying example of where this naivete inevitably ends.
I don't think you fully grasp the ramifications here.
governments will give utilities a monopoly but with requirements such as they must service everyone regardless of profitability or they get fined all to shit.
So why would any utility take that offer? Do you have an example of such a contract between state and private company that you find these terms? I'd like to take a look at the bidding process.
If the government is corrupt or corruptible (and which aren't?) then "service everyone" isn't as objective as it seems.
Meanwhile you can just force all the collective carriers to post their prices and their profits publicly or threaten them with complete loss of license to operate. This has been effective in the past and allows for a more open system with many competitors rather than a state selected contractor.
This is one of those cases where you don't know what you're talking about and you should stop speaking as if you're an authority here.
I love how you throw in bidding as if we're not talking about the government giving a monopoly in exchange for guarantees (it's considered a public good). This exchange of guarantees has made energy one of the most stable long term investments in a way that other investments just aren't. Gee, why would anyone take that deal?
Where are you referring to? In the US railroads were never nationalized (long-term) and private roads were never much of a thing, and the US has a pretty good (freight) railroad system [1].
To expand on your point, the United States Railroad Association only lasted for a little over two years until the Esch-Cummins Act was passed in 1920. Later, Conrail was under federal control for about a decade before it was sold to private investors in 1987, but it had a more regional focus.
Regulatory capture has made that near impossible now. At least crypto throws another challenger in the ring and can give people and businesses an, albeit inferior, alternative.