Likewise. I was preparing to cringe, but municipal level utilities actually make sense. That scale is large enough to solve the inherent coordination problems, but small enough to be responsive to the preferences of the residents and subject to competition from nearby municipalities.
the united states is a federal republic. municipal government is SUPPOSED to be the level of government where programs like this are implemented. communities will have varying needs and their local governments are best equipped to evaluate and meet those needs.
Is there really that much variation in basic infrastructure like internet access though?
yes. some communities have 10000 people per square mile (Brooklyn, where I live) while other communities have 6 people per square mile (rural Wyoming), and we've also got everything in between.
the infrastructure requirements, costs, and issues for these communities are extremely different.
Yes, but that's not that hard to account for. Private companies don't seem to have much trouble. My question isn't "would municipal government be better than private companies", but "would federal government be worse"?
Private companies often don't serve (or underserve) those less populated areas. Their solution to that problem is to not provide service as they aren't required. Municipal broadband which is provided as a public service/utility, however, is better suited to serve everyone, as they are often required to do that rather than only focus on the areas that generate the most profit.
Most local franchise agreements require a certain level of internet service to be offered to a particular percentage of people. It's not regulated at the national level like the Universal Service Fund does for phones, but a national internet would certainly have similar targets.
Yeah it's almost as if the submitter intentionally made the title misleading.