What won't private corporations do? I'm certainly not arguing for a privatized military although I wouldn't oppose streamlining the military bureaucracy. I agree there are certain functions that can and should be governmental by nature such as military, veterans affairs, law enforcement, etc.

In your example, I don't think the government is the most efficient person to build cell towers. I think two separate companies would be far more efficient. The government would need a year just to create task forces to determine potential locations. Those task forces would need staffers and then you would have the public input section. If said towers obstructed a view you could expect a lawsuit requiring extensive litigation--baring in mind that unlike a private corporation, the government isn't really worrying about these sort of costs. Once we get by these hurdles we'll need to create inter-agency memorandums of understanding so that cell tower agency staffer 1 can work with FCC staffer 2. These MOUs will need to be reviewed, coded and filed taking a month or two. And now that we get down to this level, would we build it? No, then we would probably shop out the individualized parts via the RFIP process, except then we need another task force to investigation having a solid mix of contractors including minority and women-owned businesses. Of course if someone disputes our RFIP selection then the process is delayed for an appeal. And of course we have to pay the auditors and appeals folks in case of this potential happenstance. Now we finally got our contractors...oh wait, one has a costoverrun you say (yes, because they all underbid to win jobs) then we need to send in our crack CPAs and lawyers to determine if the contract was violated meanwhile work has stopped. And this is really only the most simplified version of it....do you really find this all to be more productive than company A doing it from the getgo? Especially when all company A does is put up cell towers?

Come to think of it, I'm forgetting the SES-level meeting regarding the decision and likely requirement of a rule variation being posted, which, of course, is another delay.

Private corporations will not put cell towers in places that don't make economic sense, but do make sense from a "wanting coverage" point of view; nor does it make sense to have two towers (different companies) covering different areas.

Likewise, it doesn't make sense to have two competing cable companies, because then you have to run TWICE as many cables; nor does it make sense to have two separate privately owned road networks servicing the same areas -- one you're allowed to drive on with one monthly subscription, one with a different one.


Private corporations do a few things well, but doing things that are uneconomical but necessary is not one of them


-----

Also i just left this here by accident for a couple hours so there might be some additional responses by now

You're presuming two cable companies would both run lines rather than company A offering to lease space on company B's lines. Companies driven by profit-motives don't usually seek to expend unnecessary capital. It's the other way around. They seek to conserve it and maximize profits.

The government, particularly those within the bureaucracy, does not look to maximize efficiency. So in your cases, I think the private sector would actually provide a more efficient and likely effective service at a much more reduced rate.

company B would never lease, companies don't LIKE competition.


Many infrastructure projects are, by nature, not efficient; but help make the economy efficient.

Right so then company C would sprout up that would lay lines and lease said lines to both A & B.

If the infrastructure noted is making the economy more efficient then how is the project, by nature, inefficient? And why wouldn't the market want such a project? There is plenty of speculative infrastructure projects throughout time that were linking the hinderlands to the mainland by air/rail/ground, etc. There are some, like the bridge to nowhere, which probably don't fit into the grandscheme and are the byproduct of government interference. You may say that's legislative evil earmarking, but then I would point to two streets in Washington, D.C. with shiny new granite curbs, new widened sidewalks, and significant street repairs. You would say, why do I care? I would say, ironically the top bureaucrats at DCDOT happen to live on those streets. Bottom line: the prioritization isn't as simplistic as it should be because bureaucracies act in their own interests.