This is mostly a fight between Google/Netflix and traditional telecoms. Google wants to be able to connect everyone with subsidized resources from municipalities, telecoms want individuals to pay for the privilege.
There's a reason why the telecoms industry graces the bottom of consumer satisfaction lists.
I have, however, wasted days of my life listening to elevator music interrupted by annoying, incredibly loud upsells, going through the same dumb, patronizing troubleshooting steps with customer support, multiple times for the same incident.
Is it subsidized? Adding Fiber lazily when repaving roads and re-doing sewers is easier for a city. Their crew is already on the ground! And all they have to do is sell it at a price where the city doesn't lose money. No profit to squeeze.
There's a lot more houses where decent internet is possible, if you accept that 0$ profit.
Cities can borrow at rock-bottom prices. Not only that, but municipal broadband will lead to higher property values, so it indirectly profits the city.
https://www.google.com/search?q=property+values+internet+acc...
https://realtorparty.realtor/community-outreach/rural-outrea...
Basically, it generally amounts to a very low change in property value, although studies are conflicting on whether having fast internet matters much, compared to having average internet:
> disconnecting an average property from a high-speed first-generation broadband connection (offering Internet speed up to 8 Mbit/s) would depreciate its value by 2.8%. In contrast, upgrading such a property to a faster connection (offering speeds up to 24 Mbit/s) would increase its value by no more than 1%.
> Our estimates suggest that there are declining returns to speed availability, with access to at least some type of Internet being more valuable than having only a very high-speed connection accessible.
> Results show that single-family homes with access to a 25 Mbps broadband connection have a price that is about $5,977, or 3%, more than similar homes in neighborhoods with 1 Mbps. The rural premium is lower at $5,099
greatest municipal subsidy is monopoly, and thus telecoms in many places have it both ways - i.e. the monopoly (or almost one) to extract payments from individuals. In this case the Google/Netflix seems to be more preferable, and they really want high bandwidth for you vs. telecoms to whom upgrading network is pure expense to be avoided whenever possible.
google/netflix really doesn't care how the residential customers' IP traffic, in aggregate, gets to the nearest major city's IX point. They're equally happy to peer with things like centurylink's GPON network. Gigantic content sources will peer and offer caching appliances (netflix) to any ISP with a sufficient volume of downstream eyeball traffic.
You're trying to write it as if google/netflix and similar have some nefarious plan to interfere in various cities' last mile fiber networks, which is not the case at all.