A couple of reasons. Economic one first: Capital investment in publicly owned utilities lags that of private-sector utilities because the former are typically

A couple of reasons. Economic one first: Capital investment in publicly owned utilities lags that of private-sector utilities because the former are typically local/regional monopolies. That can lead to moderate problems when the utility in question is something like municipal water -- maybe grandma's meter breaks and she never gets a bill in 10 years or city workers struggle to meet updated standards as the equipment ages out. But with something that evolves as fast an internet use? You're likely committing future generations to using last-gen (or worse) tech because upgrades are expensive and there's no local competition to nudge the provider to upgrade. The other argument is simple politics: If the city owns/controls the pipes, there will be a contingent of voters that want to control content (say, pornography) and a contingent of politicians ready to accommodate them. All of which flies wholly in the face of First Amendment protections covering how the government can('t) regulate speech. The combination of cries from the public and very limited options will make this a political briar patch after a few cities stub their toes on high-profile cases.