A co-op is owned collectively. Therefore collective ownership is not a unique feature of a municipal service. Additionally a municipal service can certainly be

A co-op is owned collectively. Therefore collective ownership is not a unique feature of a municipal service. Additionally a municipal service can certainly be contracted out to a private company (for-profit or otherwise). So there may still be middlemen. I don't know where you read me claiming this article or anything like it would be a victory for capitalism. If I count, I say twice that I am in full support of this endeavor and others like it. So I am not sure why you are arguing as if I am opposed. But if you do want to argue, I have lived in mid-sized cities in the US and observed abysmal municipal services in the form of public transit and also community wifi. I have also been in municipalities where these services are wonderful. I would argue that public transit, even more than internet, can spur economic activity and improve the lives of residents. Nevertheless, despite the potential value of the service, there is no guarantee that a municipality does even a halfway decent job of it. Why should I necessarily expect different in the case of this particular service, internet access? Before this conversation devolves I will remind you that I voiced my full throated support for this initiative twice in my original post and have noted that twice in this post. My response here is specifically addressing the points that you raised that municipal service is unique in its ownership structure and more likely to be good because of its incentive structure.