> the common folk in a town have to pay at least somewhat for the municipal broadband even if they do not use it; so it'd better be worth using. Just anecdotal

> the common folk in a town have to pay at least somewhat for the municipal broadband even if they do not use it; so it'd better be worth using. Just anecdotally, there are Whip City Fiber signs up all over (you get a discount if you let them put one on your lawn with installation). We're long past the days where Internet access is desired by only a subset of the population. I think $70/mo is a little above what "everybody" wants to pay. I am hoping after the initial financials have settled, they will offer a lower tier. > actively excluding competition (Comcast in this case, if the title is anything to go by) If you read the article, what Charlemont rejected was the town paying Comcast for a build out. That's a significant point that's glossed over in most of these public vs private debates - with low population density, private communications companies do not nobly invest their own money, but get the government to pay for the infrastructure that they end up owning.