The government can subsidize the costs and offer service for well below the actual costs, which is unfair competition.
That seems like a red herring. "The Government" isn't some giant mega-corp paying out stockholders, it is run and funded by the citizens. That's not "the government" subsidizing the costs, it's the taxes paid by the people who live there. The people are subsidizing the costs, so why shouldn't the government be allowed to build and maintain a network for the benefit of the people which is paid for by the people? The answer of course is because the ISPs think they deserve everyone's money. That doesn't mean that towns should not be allowed to pool their resources and plan and deploy their own network paid for by themselves. Even if they are competing with a private company, they should still be allowed to do it. If the private company can't build a better network and provide better service than the people doing it for themselves then the private company doesn't get any business. They can up their game or go elsewhere. Instead, in reality, they find that it's a better investment to pay legislators to pass laws which favor themselves against the people living there, and the end result is that the people still have the same shit network that has been there for the last several decades and they're still paying way too much for it. That's the specific situation that people want to change - they want a fast network and a reasonable price, not 10down/1up DSL for $80/month.
The issue in high costs with broadband come from partial or complete monopolies of ISPs.
Right. But all of a sudden when the people step in to build their own network then *that* is unfair competition? I think the existence of a monopoly makes the environment for unfair competition, not a town deciding that they want to publicly fund a network.
In order to reduce costs, the government can help introduce competition.
How can they do that? Keep in mind that ISPs have very large war chests, and that they have no problems with paying large sums of money to legislators in order to maintain their monopolies and ban towns from doing things themselves. So how exactly should anyone expect the government to "introduce competition"? Wouldn't the ISPs claim some other sort of government overreach? If building their own network is unfair competition, then wouldn't "introducing competition" be labeled as some sort of anti-capitalist big government move to influence the market? You write a lot of bright-sky points without offering any actual solution. What is this supposed to mean:
I really like this idea in Virginia of providing a means for municipalities to introduce competition
What are you actually suggesting there? Anything at all? I'm not talking about suggesting vague things like "introducing competition", I'm talking about actual laws that would help the situation. Because a town getting together and deciding to fund and build their own network is a concrete example of introducing competition, but if that's not what you're suggesting then what kind of concrete steps are you referring to?