> the fastest fibre

Hard to argue with that conclusion when there's only one option.

You skipped a few steps. If it's not the fastest, then other companies wouldn't go bankrupt, since they're offering something better.

I.e. it would be the only option only if other companies bring nothing better to the table.

At a guess, I would hazard the thousands of people who would become unemployed? And not all be able to immediately go and work for the 'British Broadband Corporation'? That's one negative side effect.

By that logic, we should ban the internet altogether, and thus create more jobs for postal workers.

No, that's incorrect.

So we should have worse, more expensive internet instead, to keep people in positions that aren't necessary? That seems like a terrible idea. Presumably a Labour Manifesto with this policy in it, would also include a bunch of provisions for unemployed people.

Presumably taxing people more to support them? I don't have a dog in this fight. But probably wise not to infer there aren't negative consequences if all bar one broadband companies get shuttered in a country.

I would gladly vote for paying all employees of all ISPs their current salary from taxes for a while, if it meant free, nationalized fast fiber in every home.

Creates more jobs, spreads knowledge, enables entertainment, connects the world. I'd say it's a great investment anywhere for society.

The first fibre in the UK came when a company saw that BT's provision was substandard. In situations like this, competition is actually good.

*cheapest fiber for free

I was using the words of the comment I responded to. If the fibre was of inferior quality, that would be the space for other companies to compete in.

I was quoting directly from the article "It’s time to make the very fastest full-fibre broadband free to everybody, in every home in every corner of our country".