It works (and is the best option bar-none) until the big few lobby the state to outright ban municipal ISPs as happened in my state (NC). So frustrating.
It baffles me that people are in support of that kind of thing. I doubt the majority of voters are, but the fact that anybody would say "yeah we should have our utilities privately managed for profit" is absurd
> The question that would be asked, is "do you want the government subsidising and disorting the internet market"
The other question that would be asked is, perhaps less explictly, is "do you want to drive [employer of X,000 jobs in the region] out of the state?". It doesn't matter if those jobs would be replaced by superior jobs at a publicly-operated telco, or if some of those jobs are complete bloat (and therefore paid for by inflated utility bills among all subscribers). Nobody wants to engage in that argument; it's a losing battle.
Yes, there's an easy answer to that, but when faced with the option of a short-term sacrifice in exchange for a long-term collective gain, people invariably opt not to take it.
While simultaneously saying broadband is available in your area because one house in the entire census track has it. We challenged the agreement with the town and they told us that we techmically had fiber service but it would cost 50k to activate it since they had to run fiber from their pop. Coupled with informing us that once we did so, our neighbors could then hook up for 49 bucks.
> We challenged the agreement with the town and they told us that we techmically had fiber service but it would cost 50k to activate it since they had to run fiber from their pop. Coupled with informing us that once we did so, our neighbors could then hook up for 49 bucks.
If only there were a way to spread that cost equally among the people who would benefit from it, and a legal structure for collecting that payment, representing the interests of the constituent people, and ensuring that the telco held up its end of the arrangement!