Yes, yes it really is and yes it is like a public sector monopoly. In fact, the franchise boards often create public sector monopolies for private companies. I don't know why you seem shocked on that or why you somehow thought is not obvious and had to point to it.
I never said it was. The world over, public sector utilities have generally proven pretty good at delivering universal coverage, and the lack of competition alone is hardly reason to criticise, particularly if the alternative is one with lack of competition and often unending "delays" in the delivery of the promised universal coverage.
In some places. For instance, I live in a state that has been part of the United States since 1860 and I have well water and a sewage tank because the closest cities will not run their public sector utilities to my house. But give a concentrated area inside the city limits- they have no issues at all. Given a new development and they make the developer build it out.
In fact, from a point of view of competition, public utilities are better, as they don't even need to be monopolies to survive. How so? Because they can make a loss that is filled from general taxation, so the "best" customers (well-off people in densely populated areas) can be cherry-picked by private corporations (this happened with the entrance of cable TV companies into the telephone market in a lot of countries) and the universal service continues. Private monopolies can't allow competition, because there would be nothing to fill the shortfall.
Like I said, I live in the country. I get my natural gas from Columbia Gas while a brother lives in the city and has to purchase from the city utility agency. He pays about 2/3rds more per unit of gas than I do. He also pays taxes that I do not have to. For instance, he pays income tax to the city, he pays extra property tax for the city and he pays $25 more for license plates for his car because the city tacked that on. So no, his public sector utilities are not being offset by taxes even though he pays a lot more than I do.
The only problem with this is that what has happened time and again is that governments declare a loss-making utility as a "disaster", and say that the only cure is privatisation, which results in degradation of service as the newly-privatised body invests only where profit is likely. The government is then forced to subsidise universal service anyway, but somehow this ceases to be seen as a "loss".
It's likely due to mismanagement and taking funds to be used in or on unrelated departments and agencies. For instance, one of the cities near me recently used the road fund to build a bike path that goes nowhere useful but because they got some federal matching funds, they spent away. Then all the sudden, everyone was bitching about the deteriorated roads and their solution was to raise taxes. Of course every single person who voted for the taxes lost their reelection bid next election but the taxes were never removed and road funds are still being spent on crap other than roads or transportation. That is mismanagement plain and simple.
It's a short-sighted, naÃve view of economics, because infrastructure is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The economic impact of the telephone wasn't limited to the pennies-per-minute of a phone call -- it stimulated trade, information exchange and new efficiencies in working; the internet does the same thing, but several orders of magnitude greater. Isn't it stupid that the only place you can reliably do remote working from is a big city? Isn't it a waste that the only people who can use Netflix reliably are the same people who already have access to cable TV?
nothing within making internet a utility or having a city take over the last mile of it would change this in any way. Your cries are for something even if it does nothing.
The internet as national infrastructure would generate huge amounts of indirect wealth, but the private market is (naturally) only concerned with direct revenue. Therefore, private internet doesn't serve the needs of a country.
As soon as the national government has constitutional authority to create and maintain an internet accessible to private citizens, they can take it over from private companies. That is the reason why private companies own it in the first place you know. There was absolutely no authority outside of defense purposes for the internet and as soon as apranet started connecting colleges private companies had to become involved because the US government simply doesn't have the constitutional authority for it. Of course people like to ignore things like the constitution but then they cry when their favorite part is ignored. If any part is ignored, all of it can be ignored and it is just that simple.