In the US the governments have actively killed them as a favor to the large corporate Internet providers.

Good explainer vid: https://youtu.be/CIEQPwf9MHY

tldr: one town in the US did it and it became an economic miracle, big telcos noticed and have set up lobbying and advertising infra to ensure it never happens.

In Europe these were largely publicly-owned, but the neoliberal tendency to privatise everything has slowly dismantled the public corporation.

My home country's formerly public energy provider has a weird share structure: a Chinese company and BlackRock add up to a fourth of the stock. No foreign investor should really be buying up stock in critical infrastructure.

This will always upset me.

Usually these ISPs are part of or under the municipal utility provider. So if they lose money, it first gets offset by profits from other utilities and eventually yes, the taxpayer will step in, directly or indirectly. No big deal. No one is complaining about subsidies for water or power lines in rural areas, neither should they when it comes to internet. Remember: These ISPs were founded because the market was already failing to provide decent offers or any at all.

In Austria the Internet, like the postal service, is a Universal Service ("Universaldienst"). As such, any completely unserviced citizen can petition the current Finance Minister to decree an ISP of his choice - usually A1, which is the privatized form of our former public office for postal services and telegraphs - to service their area. The costs of facilitating the servicing of this area are covered by all active ISPs of a certain size operating in Austria.

Telecommunications law in Europe is a very interesting thing.

Why make the assumption that municipalities must treat their internet services as a second-rate utility? Many local governments are competently run.

If the internet is out, it's going to be just as visible and probably will yield as many complaints as losing power, sewer, and water.

There's voting with your wallet and voting with your, well, vote.

In some sense a democracy is also a market and can lead to efficient allocation of resources, particularly common resources for common good.

This is why public utilities tend to work so well in practice. People, especially in the US, don't seem to realise that such services are also subject to strong market forces, just a different kind of market.

Voters care a lot about good public services, and they also care a lot about not getting taxed much. This can lead to very efficient outcomes in well functioning democracies, often more efficient than those that come out of private enterprise, when it comes to services that most of the population needs.

If it loses money, do some combination of raising prices and cutting costs. Aim for an average of zero profit/loss over the long term. Undercutting commercial offerings is perfectly fine if it works out that way.

shhhh.... don't say any.... the US is the bestest country in the world...

we're also really good at feeding our poor and disabled too

And here I am in Hong Kong paying a too high (there's cheaper offerings) 248HKD (USD32) for 2gbit/s up/down