When my parents first ordered a phone from the Post Office (pre BT days) in about 1965 it took 6 months to get a line. This was in an urban area. The good old state controlled GPO didn't invest enough to even put in the basic infrastructure. This was quite normal at the time. The situation was little different in 1976 when I got my first flat in outer London. The phone was connected just before my first 6 month lease expired.
Anyone who thinks state controlled telephones is a good idea can't have been around before BT was created in the run up to privatisation.
I'll add fuel to the flames with the middle ground. I think Dave's point is a valid one; the privatisation of the GPO/BT in the way it was done was not ultimately the best way to do it. I believe that in order to truely break the monopoly, BT should have been split there and then into two distinct parts; one charged with responsibility for the national infrastructure, and one charged with the task of delivering phone services and the like to consumers - in much the same way as the old gas board was split into BG and Transco; one for carrying across the UK, the other for "selling" to consumers.
In that way, the customer-facing part of BT would have been forced to compete equally with all the other telcos as a provider, with no direct ownership of the national infrastructure.
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
deleted
