[alphabettsy]

The majority of people in the US live in a place with only one useful broadband option, which is usually the cable provider along with DSL which I do not consider broadband.

If you recall the drama of Google Fiber and other relatively recent attempts to rollout fiber, the existing companies have often gotten local and state laws passed making it extremely difficult to add competitive services at a more reasonable cost.

[toast0]

Well managed DSL isn't terrible. I've got bonded VDSL2 at a combined 80 Mbps/10 Mbps. That's good enough for most things, although it's tier limited (my lines could do more, but the sync rate is capped), and I'd love more upstream, and a bunch of other stuff... But it's not bad enough for me to foot the bill to get muni fiber extended to my house (and then tear up my driveway to get it to the house).

[alphabettsy]

From what I understand this isn’t what’s available to most. Anecdotally the DSL I’ve found available as an alternate at a few places in the country has been less than 30 Mbps at best.

[lotsofpulp]

Might make sense if you view it as a capital improvement. I wouldn’t consider buying a house without fiber, or if I had the option, I would value a house with fiber much more.

[toast0]

The guestimate from the utility district was $50,000. And that probably doesn't include onsite work, because I'm quite a ways back from the street and have underground power and telephone, so there's no poles to go from the steet with aerial fiber.

I'm going to hold tight and wait for either a neighborhood group to form (unlikely) or someone else on the route to extend the network so I don't have to extend it all the way.