To me, it’s a bit like saying every town needs a Starbucks, and a Home Depot, and a target. And if the town can’t sustain the economics of those businesses, everyone else needs to pay higher prices to subsidize them, because... reasons.
Unfortunately, the way the US and state governments tend to do these uneconomical "public good" things is: "Throw money at already-large corporations, who pocket the money and don't do the thing anyway, because there were no strings attached."
The deal with these protected monopolies, when the public grants them, is that the receiver is required to build out infrastructure to serve all the citizens who granted them the privilege of planting poles or digging trenches all over their public property (for comfy profit) in the first place. However those incentives are at conflict with a for profit charter as you understand.
We’ve done a woefully terrible job holding these companies accountable for building and investing in infrastructure even when it wouldn’t be convenient, which has been demonstrated time and again as people are raising in this thread. These telcos literally take billions in gov’t grants and sit on them saying “we tried it was too expensive, moar $$ plz”, which is complete and utter BS.
If we didn't have these arrangements then sure, let a for profit company do as it pleases. Let it negotiate the land rights with individual citizens. Let it raise the initial capital privately to fund buildouts. Etc. That’s just not how we handle common good utilities.
A lot of the problems seems to be that Internet service doesn't need to be a full monopoly. Separate the organization that tears up the ground and from the one that provides data service.
I agree that throwing tax money at corporations without clear deliverables is bad policy. It's also bad policy to waste taxpayer dollars building bridges to nowhere, which is precisely what broadband access in the middle of nowhere is.
Access to infrastructure makes places more desirable to live. It increases property values, which in turn encourage more development. I get it. I understand why local governments throw incentives to telcos to artificially make their cities more attractive and lucrative for business. It's not just telcos. We do it for sports stadiums, factories, movie productions. By and large, these policies end up being wealth transfers from the poor and middle class to wealthy people.
> A bridge to a town of 10k can be quite profitable
If it was, someone would do it. That's the beautiful thing about capitalism.
We can opine about living in a libertarian paradise, but we don’t.
Aerial fiber cable costs ~ $8 per foot. Those towns already have electricity, so they have telephone polls. 100 miles * 5280 * 16 (doubling the material cost to account for termination, connectors, etc), is $8.5M. Assuming the fiber lasts 30 years, that’s $281K per year. Small towns in the US have 2500-4999 people. At the minimum size to qualify as a town, that’s $112 per person per year, or under $10/month for the trunk line. At $100/month per house that should be profitable.
Also, the trunk will serve people outside of town.
The ACP money should be used to fund build-outs like this and dictate that the resulting lines have common carrier status (any ISP can rent bandwidth on them at the same price and priority).