> the existence of successful municipal broadband disproves neoliberal dogma that state-run anything will always be less efficient, more wasteful and more corrupt than privately owned alternatives.
It's easy to be the best service provider when competition is quashed by rules and regulations. How are private entities supposed to compete when states and municipal governments are no longer afraid to blow their budgets? These services are essentially subsidized with unlimited dollars from the federal government.
That's not to say there won't be competition. Various governments will eventually create their own broadband services and states will adapt the best policies to ensure they are competing with the best states/services. This would(in the future) serve to disprove the "neoliberal dogma that state-run anything will always be less efficient, more wasteful and more corrupt than privately owned alternatives".
The "neoliberal dogma" asserts that the private sector without competition from government will out perform by all metrics in the long run. Comparing a world of government run services to a world of private run services over the course of 100 or 500 years would be necessary to get a better idea.
There are other ramifications that arise when governments control services. Corruption, in it's many forms could degrade the service. For instance, if the government becomes radical and disables certain individuals or groups from connecting to various online entities, the argument still exists that "example" government run broadband provides the fastest speed. However, it is a mute point if you are one of the individuals or groups that is being targeted.
Using the above example of targeted restrictions, the private sector solves this by having competition. If there is a group that wants something, there would be another to provide it.