[SteveGerencser]

I would agree with you except I'm still paying $90/mo for 3Mb (yes, meg) DSL from the only copper provider in the area and have been hearing from them for nearly a decade that 'fiber is coming' soon. Every time someone makes progress on providing an alternative (the local electric company has tried most recently) they have been fought HARD by the local phone company. I've even looked at renting an office in the next town over to set up my own point to point wireless solution after the local phone company quoted me $5000 per MONTH for a 10Mb service.

[ultrarunner]

The competition situation is a different subject, and yes it's terrible. If municipal broadband had the effect of undoing the monopolies (as opposed to crowding out competition) it would definitely be a positive.

[wolrah]

> (as opposed to crowding out competition)

How many places are you aware of in the US that have legitimate broadband competition? As in two or more independent providers offering gigabit or greater service with comparable real world performance? Competition in the American broadband market is largely a myth.

Back when DSL mattered there was a short period of time where it was possible to order competitive DSL, but in the end it was still using the ILEC's infrastructure so service could rarely be better or cheaper.

While it has occasionally happened it's incredibly rare for two cable companies to serve the same addresses, they definitely don't go out of their way to do it because the business model usually can't make sense of a buildout unless they expect to get most of the potential customers they pass.

Likewise for commercial fiber. AT&T, Comcast, Google, Verizon, they're not building fiber networks where anyone else already did.

Municipal fiber comes in one of two flavors. There the PON services that are basically built the same way as a commercial provider but are run as nonprofits, and there are the Amsterdam Citynet or UTOPIA style open access networks where the government organization runs the last mile but then allows providers to rent access to that last mile network to access customers.

I am a fan of the latter variety, the local government runs the local infrastructure that doesn't make sense for the free market to compete in and then service providers can focus on providing competitive service without having to worry about the last mile. Users in such areas have the most competitive internet access markets seen since the dialup era.

The former variety doesn't crowd out competition either though, it comes about because there is no real competition. Never has a local government gotten in the ISP business without the incumbent provider(s) having decided to ignore their jurisdiction's problems for a long time. PON style buildouts are faster and cheaper, so it's no surprise they get selected in a lot of areas.

[anticensor]

> Municipal fiber comes in one of two flavors. There the PON services that are basically built the same way as a commercial provider but are run as nonprofits, and there are the Amsterdam Citynet or UTOPIA style open access networks where the government organization runs the last mile but then allows providers to rent access to that last mile network to access customers.

There is a third flavour where the municipality owns a PON service, and operates it as a for-profit service, exploiting the citizens as a monopoly at profit margins way higher than it would be feasible if run as a private company.

[wolrah]

> There is a third flavour where the municipality owns a PON service, and operates it as a for-profit service, exploiting the citizens as a monopoly at profit margins way higher than it would be feasible if run as a private company.

Would you like to provide some examples? Not saying it can't happen, it's certainly possible if maybe a little bit implausible, but I haven't heard of such situations and I would assume that if it was even remotely common that the Comcasts and AT&Ts of the world would be shouting from the rooftops about it.