Monopolies do not lead to less costs, they lead to more. Once a monopoly has been established the company has free reign to squeeze their consumers dry while providing minimal service, since there's no competition left to switch to. I'd rather have half a dozen streaming services (especially if they stay easy to subscribe/unsubscribe from on a monthly basis) I can rotate between then the one service that charges me an arm and a leg and keeps its customer service minimal to pad its bottom line even further.
This is the accepted wisdom, but we've privatised things and opened them up to competition that have become fragmented, inefficient, expensive and ultimately worse.
Privatization is a different beast. It usually involves basic utilities and services, that might not be profitable if run/overseen by the government, since that usually involves the idea of equal access/coverage for all. The example I can think of is the mail service. There's a duty of the mail to deliver to everyone, even if it is in a more remote area and at the same rate. So privatization might mean that whatever companies buy it up might restructure it to be actually profitable. So for example remote areas might become more expensive to send mail to or from, because it would hurt the bottom line too much to keep the infrastructure open to regularly service these areas.
And you all thought the Enterprise looked too much like an Apple store already
