Why?
> This proposal means billions of Pounds wasted on killing the industry
Wasted or invested?
> and billions more lost as a result.
Why? By who? To who?
> And then stagnation and a slow decay...
Where? Due to what?
Because if the government decides that it can, at any point, kill off your entire industry and destroy hundreds of billions in value, then we’re all fucked.
Once this is done, then of course someone will say "hey let's nationalise the wireless industry as well"... Those guys are real Marxists, that's their ideology and goal.
Unfair competition from the state, with limitless pockets, driving them to bankruptcy.
> Wasted or invested?
Wasted when finally repealed, or lost to lack of maintenance.
> Why? By who? To who?
Taxpayers
> Where? Due to what?
No competition. Lack of incentives to improve the network.
edit: love to see the downvotes of those who can't argue. Keep em coming
Nope. The competition can still sell a better service, and can pass the free tier on for free. Also, ISPs sell bundled services, such as SIM cards or media packages. They can continue doing that.
> Wasted when finally repealed, or lost to lack of maintenance.
Nope. Invested. If some future government wants to throw that investment in the bin, that's on them.
> Taxpayers The Tax Payer already invests in the infrastructure and get's nothing back.
> No competition. Lack of incentives to improve the network.
Nonsense. This isn't a monopoly. If anything, the infrastructure in terms of ground works will make it cheaper for private companies to run their own cables to people's houses, offering superior bandwidth.
There won't be competition because broadband will have to be free and it will also be a monopoly (what else?).
They won't stop there because they want a socialist economy. 5G? State-monopoly and 'free', etc.
How can seemingly smart and educated people in 2019 not understand and see what these guys are? They don't even hide it. Just ask Eastern Europeans, they know.
How does that kill competition, enforce a monopoly, and ripple through into 5G - which is the mobile companies and nothing to do with OpenReach?
For someone complaining of everyone's lack of smarts, you seem to have very little awareness of what is actually proposed. The sad thing is, BT invented a lot of the kit that enabled fibre. Much of the research whilst they were still a nationalised utility, and proposed to roll it out 100% in the 80s. That was FTTH not FTTC. Thatcher stopped it. The tech was sold off to the companies they now buy from.
The Labour manifesto: "We will establish British Broadband, with two arms: British Digital Infrastructure (BDI) and the British Broadband Service (BBS)."
This is both infrastructure and retail. That by default enforces a monopoly and kills competition. Even if it is not made illegal to do, what company can compete against free?
McDonnell publicly stated that private providers would be allowed to continue, but [1]:
"Mr McDonnell said that if other broadband providers did not want to give access to British Broadband, then they would also be taken into public ownership."
This is a non-existing choice in reality. It's either go bankrupt or be nationalised.
Obviously this is just the tip of the iceberg considering all the other nationalisation that they have already publicly proposed. It would have a ripple effect to 5G, and perhaps even a direct effect (nationalisation).
At the moment the reaction has be muted because the market does not think they'll be elected. But if they are then I predict that the stock market will immediately crash (on Friday 13th December, of all dates...)
The choice of giving access here is a different measure - to give access to the infrastructure arm for those companies who have built out smaller, competing fibre networks like the couple of city services that sprung up. It's unclear if that will encompass the tiny regional additions to add internet to far flung rural villages.
In essence, that is no difference to local loop unbundling, except this time it's going the other way and requiring the national provider be given access to infrastructure.
There is still no reason not to provide a commercial retail ISP service. Maybe Talktalk will still be able to offer something in place of merely being cheaper by being the shittest in the market. Maybe Zen or Andrews and Arnold will be able to carry on charging more by offering a markedly better standard of service, or faster internals, or a robust stance on blocking and censorship. The compulsory part is -- from what we have been told -- only the infrastructure access. Sky and Virgin will probably include TV as part of the package.
It will be similar to how private medicine ceased to be in the UK after the NHS was instantiated -- except it didn't, did it? BUPA and others found a niche.
Whether it works, is a success, or a mega-project mega-failure remains to be seen. The idea of a nationalised infrastructure in a world where the net is required for so much makes sense, particularly when national rollout of FTTH has been so dire. It has become as much a natural monopoly as water. I'm less convinced the retail side makes quite so much sense...
5G is, for the time being, completely irrelevant as it's a mobile tech.
* If some future government wants to throw that investment in the bin, that's on them.*
No, that's on the taxpayers. Politicians never pay the cost.