Owning 'infrastructure' is a different than being service provider. I actually would strongly support municipalities owning the last mile as part of their serv

Owning 'infrastructure' is a different than being service provider. I actually would strongly support municipalities owning the last mile as part of their services, but I'm less interested in them actually providing service. The problem is the monopoly still exists. My father lives in a small town ironically with a tiny little ISP not owned by one of the majors. But the water - they pay $200 a month for water (!), because they are making major expansions to the water stations to support new building. The town council was pushed to do this by the builders with a lot of wining and dining. So the local, fairly poor townspeople are paying ridiculous rates. Since amalgamation, the town does not have it's own mayor, they do 'regional' groupings, so the individual town can't punt the program. Due to monopoly situation in the town, the townspoeple are stuck paying massive rates to subsidize a rich builders exploits. These things are common and guaranteed to happen. The idea is to have some degree of socialization where absolutely necessary, and then to try to provide real competition on that infrastructure. If the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure can be competitive (like roads) then great. For electricity transport, it can become a problem, as the semi-private agencies that manage the electrical grid are often very inefficient. Every town should take control of the 'last mile gear' but I suggest your ISP actually should be one of many private players. Definitely more than the physically limited Choice of Comcast + 1 other.