Likely what's happening, is someone was put in charge with a purposeful goal of weakening public end points. Similar shenanigans happened with the FCC, and it is a modern trick to denigrating the value of public services.
* First, take an excellent Government service and under-fund it by reducing its budget or hobbling it in some capacity
* Ensure that the prior does not cut the budget in half, or something so overt. If you do that, your political adversaries will surely drum up support to stop you. Instead just never increase the budget. Let aging infrastructure go unfunded for upgrades and improvements, etc. Small, non-apparent cuts.
* Next, put someone in charge who ensures that the service is eating money, yet its output is useless for most tasks, and unreliable.
* Later, complain how the service is clearly not useful, yet "look at all this money the taxpayer pays!!", and suggest changing its scope so that it better aligns with "others providing the same service". Key to this is that you didn't cut the budget extensively, so the service is indeed very expensive without value.
* Either dismantle the service entirely, or turn it into a shadow of its former self
This is an ongoing game. There are those that literally go bananas, at the idea of anything, anything at all being done by Government.
It is ridiculously easy to keep services up, if you're even mildly competent, and just handle things with the correct process. Process is vital here, key, how you develop services, and how you deploy and monitor and maintain them, is key.
The fact that stuff "just goes down" repeatedly means that they literally have no idea what they're doing.
And I suspect that's on purpose.