
"But they wouldn't connect them to the internet would they?"
A small thought exercise:
Privatised companies are ALL about the money - when they are privatised it is inevitably sold to the public as "Private companies are somehow magically more efficient and will cut costs for the consumer", if you believe that stop reading now - you need the kind of help I can't provide in a few paragraphs. Otherwise if you are prepared to accept that that's bollocks and it's all about the money - read on
Would connecting a companies power stations, substations and other assets to the internet save money? YES - large savings are possible as you can centralise all the numpty work and reporting , having 24x7 teams in place or even on call for every location is very expensive - you can reduce this drastically by having as much of this work done remotely as possible. Using 'civilian' internet connections is way cheaper than dedicated lines (bear in mind the sheer number of locations you are probably talking about here)
Is it a good idea? Well no, not really for all the reasons you probably know already if you read el'reg
Would removing large amounts of fall back redundant systems, lines and power stations and other assets save money? Well obviously yes, much less to maintain and support - the cost saving is obvious
Is it a good idea? Again no, obviously no - these are your backup, your fall back and emergency systems, these are what you rely on in the case of a major problem at one of your primary sites. America did this already (remember the east coast blackout? Been to California lately?) So it's obviously a bad idea with no benefit other than cost saving (odd that my bills still go up...)
They already got rid of most of the redundancy in the network as far as I am aware, now go back and re-read question 1 - would they do it?