system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Nationalised broadband (as proposed by the UK's Labour party) is a dangerous proposition

The internet was designed as an open system whereby people can communicate and share information freely, and as such has revolutionised our world for the better. This is because it is largely unrestricted.

I believe that we all have a right to access this technology regardless of means, political position, religion, sexuality, etc, etc. It shoulld be freely (as in freedom, not free lunch) available to all as designed.

My view: any government is made up of individuals serving themselves, their party and their interests over that over their constituents. It is a job, like any other. As such, any proposed nationalisation of the internet will open the door to censorship, suppression, propaganda and police-state style tactics and therefore a terrible threat to both the national and larger, global community that must not be allowed to be realised.
gpt
Look at how the so called "free and open" internet works in the US right now under control from private entities. The privately owned ISPs limit bandwith to serve their own profits and stifle competition. The vast majority of people in the US only have access to a single ISP, essentially giving that ISP a monopoly, which drives up costs unnecessarily. Rural areas where there isn't a huge financial incentive for private companies to develop the infrastructure to deliver high speed internet are just left out in the cold. 

Also, the private companies which currently control most of the internet are also institutions comprised of individuals serving their own interests. The difference is that a company like Google, Amazon, or Facebook doesn't even have the appearance of being answerable to constituents. Sure, politicians and policy makers may be corrupt, but they are the exceptions who are not doing what they are supposed to within their jobs. The owners of private companies are corrupt *by design*. Their whole goal is to squeeze as much money out of the internet as possible, without any consideration for higher-minded ideals. 

Your argument is that an unregulated internet has provided free and open internet for everyone, but it hasn't. What makes you think a private company has better incentives to protect free speech and provide equal access to everyone than elected officials?