From there, any ISP can rent rack space, and arrange their own backbone/uplink, and get wired to whatever customers they can. Municipality charges a fee to use the fiber, and that's it.
Muni provides the line to the CO, ISP is responsible after that. They can compete on their internet speed, price, support, and whatever else they want (Netflix box, email, low latency to game servers).
Muni could even add a "no-internet" free service that just provides access to city services, library, etc.
We have a variant of that here. An indy company just laid fiber here but they don't provide service. Instead I have a choice of 8+ competing fiber companies.
Before fiber, I had 1 'choice' of ISP and paid $124/mo for 1Gb/40Mb w/ 40ms latency to the IX.
Now my choices include 1Gb/1Gb $49, 2Gb/2Gb $79, 10Gb/10Gb $199 w/ 4ms latency to the IX.
As a user though you pay for bandwidth at the interchange because that's how the old privatised and divested government monopoly did it.
The model, last mile public utility but all the speed private wouldn't be all that awful if it weren't butchered by various vested interests. In theory the current last mile company will be sold once it becomes profitable.
Lots of it is just about marketing though.
But in that case, doesn't it make more sense for the government to just cut out the middleman and offer internet to consumers directly? What is the company's value-add?
They might even own the peering network closet (which is often a weatherproof enclosure with a backup generator).
Providing Layer 3.
Just like the government owns the roads and highways, and lets UPS and FedEx use them for delivery.
The theory is that roads/fibre are natural monopolies, but the services that use them can be competitive. There just needs to be a fee for the upkeep of the infrastructure (but it doesn't necessarily need to make a (hufe) profit).