That's a terrible idea. You probably can't remember how bad the telephone services were when they were nationalised. Having to wait 6-12 months for a line was the norm. Prices were high.

People seems to forget just how badly state run services typically are, even compared to AT&T and the like..

My father was a surveyor in the city of London who worked on new office construction. He used to tell me how back in the days of nationalised phone service the first thing you did when you were building a new office building, before you'd even laid the foundations, was to order the phone lines, otherwise they wouldn't be ready in time for opening the building

Doesn't that makes sense anyway? It isn't like have to get your phone lines after anything else.

No, it does not. In most cases it's not as if they had to lay down new copper from a central office to the new building or would have to run copper throughout the building. If the thing was built on top of existing infrastructure then it "should" not be a big deal to hook the building into said infrastructure. Of course, I say this without knowing the quality of the infrastructure in question.

infrastructure provided by the government which sells it to ISPs that hunt for customers. That models work pretty well already in many cities and small countries.

The Network Rail is what we've got already - BT Openreach provides the infrastructure, which is resold by myriad companies who have access on equal terms. The problem is that Openreach has no universal service commitment. Their customers are the ISPs, not end-users.

We've had nationalisation and it was a complete shambles. BT had no interest whatsoever in providing Broadband until Telewest came along. You couldn't even buy your own phone or answering machine until 1982 - before then, only a BT engineer was allowed to connect equipment to their network.

The straightforward solution is simply to offer a grant or tax credit to any company that provides the first high-speed connection to a house. Progressively increase the subsidy over a number of months or years to create a Dutch auction between BT, Virgin and whoever else throws their hat in the ring. This would progressively push up the LTV of customers relative to the cost of acquisition, creating the maximum number of connections at the minimum cost to the treasury.

Another model is to separate the entities that own and sell the infrastructure from the entities who own and sell the service. It's all still privatized but there is no monopoly.

It's a good idea in theory.

In practice a conservative government will end up selling off and privatizing the company. Subsequent governments will still act like they own it though, because that one company now controls 99% of the country's infrastructure. The share price will then stagnate forever.

Kinda damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Can a conservative government also privatize public roads and pathways? I mean, nowadays it can be argued that broadband/communication is as important as the transportation network. It's at the core of our day to day communications. Although if public roads can be sold to be managed by private companies, then we're screwed in both situations. But I'd rather have my tax money going to pay for infrastructure and innovation than to bailout this or that bank.

There are privatized "public" roads in the US. They are called "tollways"

Even the SWP and Keith Have given up on that one :-) and network rail has worked so well hasn't it NOT!

To be fair, the current telephone network, including fibre is owned by BT Openreach. Under agreement with ofcom they have to provide equal and fair access to their network to any company who wants it.