discussion about national monopoly infrastructure providers in UK

[Ken H]

In the UK we have:-

Network Rail, publicly owned

Openreach - privately owned by a major Internet Service Provider (BT)

Transco/National grid - Privately owned

There is no national water network.

All have the disadvantage in that they are insulated from the industries customers. Rail, by the TOC's, Telecoms, by ISP's, Electricity/gas by energy retailers

So they all can carry on without really caring about the customers who eventually pay their wages.

So when I moved house, I was promised a phone/internet service 1 week after I moved. It was a bit short notice so I accepted that. But the connection date was missed by 3 weeks because Openreach didnt know their infrastructure (The house hadnt had a phone line for a few years and part of the old cable route between the fibre cabinet in the village to my house was in use by another circuit, but that wasnt on their asset register). My ISP did their best to get me connected but Openreach seemed not to care.

so are national monopoly infrastructure providers a good idea or do we need another way? Is network rail's insulation from rail customers bad for the railway? And is public or private ownership relevant?

 

[Randomer]

Certainly with Telecoms having a national backbone infrastructure makes sense especially limited loop unbundling allowing for competition. Otherwise you can end up with ISP/Phone company monopolies charging outrageous amounts for internet service whilst being the only option for the area as happens in a lot of the US and Canada over 100 USD a month isn't unusual there.

The mess with Openreach has been brought about by cost cutting (especially the use of contractors paid by connections made/fixed leading to bad lines being switched over for good ones so somebody else loses or gets a rubbish connection but the problem for the customer on the job sheet if fixed, absolute rubbish is then made up on the reports making tracing the real fault much harder in the end.) However, like with the ORR and track access charges on railways the government dictates the amount that can be charged to ISPs for the connection line and any space in exchange cabinets which is being pretty much cut continuously. So such problems can't be left entirely at the door of BT trying to make a profit.

National Grid doesn't really matter to me in terms of ownership but having all generation privately done but them hugely subsidized like the new nuclear sites or renewables previously seems insane when the government could borrow for the required costs at a much lower price than commercial borrowing. This is an ideological way of reducing apparent government spending year on year but costing far more in the long run like the huge increase in PFI contracts.

 

[Bald Rick]

The National part of it is largely irrelevant. If a utility provider has a monopoly on a certain geographic region, it is the same result for the consumer.

Anecdotal example:

I recently needed a new broadband connection and a new gas connection to my house because of rebuilding works.

The (local monopoly) gas network company charged me nearly £1000, and took 4 visits. On the third visit they refused to do the work because they claimed they needed a road closure (at an additional cost of several hundred pounds) because the work encroached on the pavement. This despite the fact that the work was further away from the road than their previous 2 visits that had not needed a closure.

Whilst I was having a lengthy ‘discussion’ with the gas company about this, Virgin (non monopoly) turned up, dug the pavement up 4 metres away, and put in a fibre optic cable in about an hour. For free.

Meanwhile the local electric (monopoly) network supplier tried to charge me about £2k for digging a 9 metre long trench across the drive in front of the house. So I took the day off and did it myself by hand.

 

[plymothian]

The National part of it is largely irrelevant. If a utility provider has a monopoly on a certain geographic region, it is the same result for the consumer.

Anecdotal example:

I recently needed a new broadband connection and a new gas connection to my house because of rebuilding works.

The (local monopoly) gas network company charged me nearly £1000, and took 4 visits. On the third visit they refused to do the work because they claimed they needed a road closure (at an additional cost of several hundred pounds) because the work encroached on the pavement. This despite the fact that the work was further away from the road than their previous 2 visits that had not needed a closure.

Whilst I was having a lengthy ‘discussion’ with the gas company about this, Virgin (non monopoly) turned up, dug the pavement up 4 metres away, and put in a fibre optic cable in about an hour. For free.

Meanwhile the local electric (monopoly) network supplier tried to charge me about £2k for digging a 9 metre long trench across the drive in front of the house. So I took the day off and did it myself by hand.

Can you choose from whom you get your water?

 

[Randomer]

No competition with water but outside of telecoms (mobile infrastructure and ISP equipment provision iniexchanges) is there any actual competition not artificially placed into the market by the government.

To me the point of electrical suppliers is all completely academic. The distribution network operator who supplies the power to your property is a monopoly who charges rates to suppliers set by the government. The DNO get there supply from the National Grid. Your power supply comes from a third company uninvolved in this apart from in some cases supplying a meter.