Yeah, unfortunately that's exactly what they are trying to do today in Brazil.
The UK recently privatised it's post office, there's lots of competition in its postal market (thank goodness).
The UK railways where private before 1948, then nationalised, it didn't work out well. Then privatised 40 or so years later because the government couldn't afford the investment required.
Are you in favour of nationalised air travel? UK tried that too and it was terrible. Exactly the same for telecoms. I'm just glad we don't have a nationalised food supply.
The UK would have a nationwide fibre network if the government didn't step in to tear down public telecoms in favour of privatisation. Now it's 2022 and other major European cities have 25 Gbit fibre, yet there are parts of London still limited to ADSL2 and copper wires.
Public-private "partnerships" are right-wing propaganda and disastrous to the public purse. Why? Because how they work in practice is the government absorbs all the risks while the private entity consumes all the profits. It's textbook rent-seeking behaviour.
> Free rail for all burdens all with the cost of rail, it removes freedom of not paying for it.
You mean like roads?
> No ticket pricing means no market signals that would show if the operator is running it's business poorly.
We don't need ticket sales to track total passenger movements.
> No adjustable pricing mean that the user has no reason to adjust their usage in terms of avoiding peak times or utilising quieter times.
Another way to put that is that people have more opportunity and mobility. I'm completely fine with that.
> No competition means no alternative, if the monopoly provides a terrible service that fleeces the tax payer, well tough luck for the user.
When is there ever competition in public transportation? Why is competition viewed as a good thing for what is an essential service? Do we need competition for the post office now to satisfy free-market cultists?