i love how the people who start by attacking and calling people "dangerous" suddenly call for "humility" when challenged.
i doubt very much you have more relevant knowledge here than i do, but the appeal to you own authority is also fun.
seems like you're just used to being the "authority figure" and are struggling to argue by more than assertion.
you think government cell phones would be better than the incredibly cheap, incredibly effective, rapidly improving and near universally available private systems that provide staggering value for money despite operating under outlandish regulatory constraint? because now you're walking onto a field where you obviously do not understand they systems or the outcomes. if the government had not run the phone company as monopoly, we'd have had internet in the 70's and 80's. you literally could not be more wrong in your claims and have chosen perhaps the most inapt example possible. (and one i know in great detail from end to end)
you also exhibit the classic statist/socialist blind spot of presumed knowledge that does not and cannot exist. you just assume that there is some "optimal" configuration instead of trade offs and that whatever this is can be known by people who have no means to collect such information, no objective structure by which to weigh it, and no incentive to get it right.
"we'll just put smart people in charge and they will decide and do the right thing for everyone" is one of the most failed doctrines in human history.
you seem to have no basic understanding of markets at all and are just vilifying them from incomprehension.
the discipline of markets is what creates consumer sovereignty and producer efficacy. your argument that "shareholder profit" is somehow a net drain on outcomes is wildly wrong. apply that to computers or cars. yeah.
it sound to me like you have swallowed the statist top-down doctrine hook and sinker and fail to understand that your standard of living and the quality of that which you consume comes from markets, not government.