If we actually had reasonable competition among local broadband (e.g. everyone in the country had a choice of at least 2-3 reasonable options, and DSL does not count as "reasonable" anymore), then I'd actually call the introduction of a government-backed option "anti-competitive", because how can any private ISP compete with that? A government-run ISP gives itself inherent anti-competitive boosts that it doesn't give anyone else.
However, in the world we have, where many people don't have enough reasonable choices to allow for actual competition among ISPs, municipal broadband seems like a perfectly reasonable response. In which case, rather than attempting to quash it, I'd rather see communities lay the fiber and then allow private ISPs to be the ones to light it up and provide bandwidth from the nearest meet-me room.
If the answer to your rhetorical question is supposed to be "they can't" then government-provided broadband is manifestly superior to anything the private sector can provide. Why would we as a society not want that?
Private ISPs can't do any of those things; they actually have to pay for infrastructure, follow regulations in installation, etc.
Personally, I'd prefer to see either community-run pseudo-ISPs ("we laid some fiber and contracted for bandwidth"), or fiber made available as infrastructure but the bandwidth handled via the market (much easier to have healthy competition).
That said, I agree that you'd get far just by providing the last mile. In the EU, deregulation basically required the owners of monopoly last mile infrastructure to separate them out into separate business units that are heavily regulated to provide equal service. Nothing prevents providers from choosing to build their own, but this ensures "anyone" can start an ISP.
E.g. in the UK, BT separated out OpenReach - not only are they restricted to offering same service and prices to everyone, their wholesale prices are published on their web pages for everyone to see.
There are still problems - e.g. BT is often accused of milking OpenReach rather than investing in the network. But those problems could have been solved by regulating profit-taking so that profits can only be taken as a proportion of investment.
OpenReach offer both local-loop-unbundling (IPSs put equipment in BT exchanges and handle backhaul themselves, and get a raw copper or fibre connection to the subscriber) and backhaul where ISPs connect to BT one or more places and get a raw IP connection to the subscriber.
It works ok, with the caveat above, and it also doesn't stop alternatives, like FTTP from other providers, in areas where it is economically viable to lay new networks.
> There are still problems - e.g. BT is often accused of milking OpenReach rather than investing in the network.
The caveat is perhaps the opposite of what you suggest. Unbundling works okay in the U.K. because BT OpenReach has been allowed to be quite profitable. (Their profits as a percentage of revenue are between TWC and Comcast.) Unbundling in the U.S. failed, in contrast, because the FCC set wholesale rates so low there was basically no incentive to invest in DSL networks.
It's my theory that stuff that works in other countries fails in the U.S. because everyone is so ideological. In the U.K., the privatization of BT was preceded by tons of economic studies analyzing how to balance broadband availability and price against the need to make investing in broadband a profitable endeavor. In the U.S. it's entirely ideological. Pro-business free marketers on one side versus people who see broadband as a social justice issue, economics be damned. We lurch form one mode to the other based on who happens to be in power.
Amazon just had a big contest on subsidies and the only exceptional thing about it was how brazen they were about it. Regulatory exceptions often are part of such deals.
> taxes (paid whether you use the service or not)
Monopolists call that "bundling". For example co-financing internet service by requiring you also pay for phone service.
The main difference is that a public service doesn't need to have profit maximizing as its primary goal.
No. Bundling means the product I want becomes more expensive, and therefore less competitive. Taxes means I have to pay for the product in any case, removing any competitive pressure.
The main difference is that a public service doesn't need to have profit maximizing as its primary goal.
Neither does a company, that's a myth. Plus, non-profits and coops exist.
"in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."
It would be awesome if we actually had a choice of provider, however you're generally limited to whatever ISP's 'turf' you fall into.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
EDIT: I just reread you comment and you're not claiming it's a free market <apologies>
What is the value of that? Wouldn't that be effectively privatizing the gains and socializing the cost?
I believe internet is a utility, and it would be great to see it regulated as such including service level and price.
No, it would be having the government provide the infrastructure that we only need one of (fiber to individual homes), while encouraging competition among service providers, rather than stagnation with a single monopoly.
Offer faster speeds and more reliable connections (compared what might be a very congested public network), at reasonable prices.
