No, they will race to your house if they can be guaranteed of a profit. Domination isn't necessary. Competition eats away at profits.
Not my problem to solve. The problem I seek to solve is the investment factor on the provider end, and distrust of the provider on the consumer end. If there are a dozen service providers all charging X, then very likely that is the cost of the service, the funding model will work. That is not what is happening.
These upgrades are installed by unicorns and the fibers are made out of pixie dust. I note the scare quotes around "free" to indicate that you know it won't really be free
I never said anything was free. Someone will need to take out a large bond to build the infrastructure, maintain it, and upgrade it. They will issue bonds corresponding to the portion of the infrastructure consumed to residents. What that portion is and how much can be subject of public debate, dictatorial fiat or something in between. It will however cover the debt or it collapses. In my established neighborhood I would assert it as opt-in for current dwellers, but require it as a title lien for future sales, I believe that would pass easily provided assurances about how this municipal entity were controlled were given.
All or none. A good way to get Internet to all.
Not the problem I'm looking to solve. It is a problem, but it requires a different solution.
It appears you are using "bond" in an unusual way in the context of a municipally-owned infrastructure. Such bonds are always transferrable.
For the people who bought the municipal bond absolutely it is a traditional bond and risk can be assessed with full knowledge of the funding model, can be transferred etc. The people who are bonded would have different terms. They would be released from debt if they die, move away or pay their bond. But they would be required to pay their debt on a schedule.
Ahh. A Ponzi scheme. Service for existing customers is paid for by new "bondholders", and their service will be paid for by later bondholders.
No it's not a Ponzi scheme. You will pay at least what you yourself owe, if not more, debts will be repaid with whatever interest was owed. It solves the problem of that large initial investment, it allows for services to be provided by traditional corporations in an economic model that fits our cultural values (i.e. rabid stupid capitalism), doesn't incur "taxes" which have a bad rap for being abused by governments and rerouted by politicians, but does create a problem: it probably is more expensive than the bare bones system a potential monopolist would create; but that's ok because they will overcharge for their much cheaper installation anyway, refuse to upgrade, and continue to profit on it long after it has been paid for.
. Nobody's soul is encumbered by an "eternal monopoly".
This is an equivocation. In many places in the US laws rabidly protect the entrenched monopolies. It is quite difficult to create alternatives, which google has found out in a few places they entered. While "eternal" does imply an indefinite time period that I cannot prove exists, it seems unlikely to change in my life-span given prevailing laws and government protections.