Municipal broadband commonly is self funded through subscribership. It is not at all difficult to provide better value than the cable company while staying cash positive, excepting the artificial barriers created to protect that profitability.
>Municipal broadband commonly is self funded through subscribership.
They make that claim but it typically exclude construction costs. As an example, quick googling says that the Fairlawn network mentioned in the article covers operating costs but does not make enough to pay down the initial $10 million worth of bonds (~$1,200 per resident). That seems to be the best that municipal fiber does. That level of success is probably worth it, but it's not exactly a slam dunk.
On the flip side there have been disasters. Provo as an example borrowed $40 million to build out their fiber and then lost millions more operating it. Eventually they had to pay more money for Google to take it off their hands.
There's this idea going around that ISPs are these terrible monopolies rolling in cash. It's just not true. Their profit margin is average for the S&P 500 and it's a risky business due to intense capital requirements. There's a reason Google walked away from the business despite municipalities falling over themselves to get it.
You're welcome to your opinion, but they have proven themselves terrible monopolies. They protect their business through regulatory capture, under-invest in infrastructure, treat end users in non-competitive markets poorly, impose data caps for no good reason. Then there's the fact it costs more for me to get an internet connection without TV than with, so they can inflate their TV subscriber numbers and hide the "cord cutting". Rent-seeking is hardly risk taking. Comcast's 40 billion a year profit, irrespective of what others on the S&P500 are doing, is not well-earned. They easily cost our economy multiples of that by keeping things slow and expensive.
Wow, the story of iProvo is really grim.[1] On top of the 40 million bond, charged every household a $5 fee including non-users, and still lost millions per year until they gave it away. It looks like Google paid them $1 for it, with the option to give it back.
It seems like reasonable people could object public services competing with with private companies if not.
A middle ground would be supporting nonprofit NGO or Co-ops, which seems to be an underutilized option in the US