• @brygphilomena
      link
      259 months ago

      Infrastructure is terrible to use as an example where competition exists.

      We can’t all have 6 different gas lines run to each building or even to each street to choose who to buy from. The distribution will always be common. So either that has to be installed and maintained by a municipality or a single company which then rents it out.

      Competition is also predicated on the concept of low barriers to entry. If it’s nearly impossible for small companies to enter the market place, there effectively never will be competition. We also have seen that money talks, that the power inequality of a big company vs small company means the large company can squeeze the small company out by economies of scale and being able to absorb larger losses until either the smaller company quits or sells to the larger company.

      We can offset a lot of this by putting in strong regulations, pathways for small businesses to enter the market, create and enforce strong anti-monolopy laws, or take ownership of core infrastructure by municipalities.

      You also seem to have the idea that anything state run is inefficient and corrupt, which has just been corporate propaganda. I trust USPS far more than FedEx, UPS, or any other parcel service. They run quickly, efficiently, and against some very harsh regulations which make them fully pre-fund retiree pensions.

      • The Quuuuuill
        link
        fedilink
        English
        59 months ago

        Meanwhile FedEx consistently says I wasn’t home when they tried to deliver which is highly interesting because I work from home and never leave my neighborhood on workdays. If they tried to make a delivery I’d see the truck. They just leave the “we missed you” post it without ever ringing the bell or knocking at the door

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -149 months ago

        We can’t all have 6 different gas lines run to each building or even to each street to choose who to buy from.

        Can you think of no other ways to deliver gas than running six pipes?

        When everything becomes electric, we’ll have plenty of utility room to spare. Locking us into a different type of monopoly won’t allow room for innovation or advancement.

        • @brygphilomena
          link
          89 months ago

          The next sentence was about shared infrastructure for the pipes. That multiple gas companies could use to distribute, with the caveat that they still would need to be owned by a single entity whether that’s a private company or municipality. I’d argue a municipality is the correct answer here.

          If we look at electric as an analogous system, the poles and wires are always owned by a single company and then the supply can be “chosen.” Even though it’s just routing where your cash goes, since electricity is all pooled. The downside, is no matter how much I may not want to support the company that owns the poles and wires, I have no other option and there is no way for a competitive company to build another product to give the consumer a choice.

          It’s why I advocate largely for the distribution infrastructure to become public owned, paid for and maintained with taxes. I don’t necessarily agree with the production of the gas/electricity/water. If the distribution infrastructure if publicly owned, then so long as a new business creates a product that matches the regulated quality they only need to pay for the permits and means to attach to the distribution network. We can lower the barrier of entry to new competitors.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            09 months ago

            The minimum standards would be set based on regulatory capture in very many municipalities. I don’t think it would be worse than jank monopolies, at least. I don’t know that the speed (or incentives) of either is something I trust with keeping up technologically.

            Moving from a monopoly to a municipality doesn’t help when the standards they set are super strict.

            • The Quuuuuill
              link
              fedilink
              English
              39 months ago

              We’ve tried that. What’s prone to happen is the corporations spend money to the municipalities to deregulate. Let’s stop giving them the chance. It hasn’t worked. Let’s instead go back to treating utilities as publically beneficial

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                19 months ago

                Or they spend money to make them over regulate. Yeah. If we can’t even control local politicians now, how do you propose we do close that bit of fuckery?

                • The Quuuuuill
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  39 months ago

                  Continuous community organization and demonstration. Systematic election reform. Solidarity

    • The Quuuuuill
      link
      fedilink
      English
      59 months ago

      You fundamentally misunderstand what people are calling for. The aim of making utilities public isn’t the enrichment of a small few, its to spread the benefits of society to all who contribute. The core of this is that we want responsible accountability and the best way to do that is to operate with a communal mindset. One in which if we find a political officer is abusing their position of power we can remove them and restore the material wealth stolen to who it belongs to. You’re so used to operating in a system where positions of power go to the already wealthy that you’re assuming that’s what we’re still calling for. Collaborative cooperation has become such a foreign concept to you that you’re completely ignoring that we’re saying utilities and services should enrich no one but society as a whole