My municipal water system is cheaper and far more reliable than my internet service.
I think there is a significant difference in the infrastructure between the two. You can't tell the difference between water molecules that come out your tap, but you desperately need the packet addressed to you to be the one coming out your internet tap, for one thing.
If the municipality owned and maintained the conduit as the grandparent poster suggested, what's the significant difference between owning and managing empty pipes compared to owning and managing water filled pipes?
In the past 10 years, I can't remember a single unscheduled outage of water service,
Happens in my town on a semi-regular basis. Some nudge ran into a fire hydrant and cracked a pipe last week, taking out an entire block of water users, for example. Collapsed pipes that weren't maintained properly (because it was a government function to maintain them and they spent the money on less important, more visible things) several times last summer.
I don't doubt it happens but does it happen as often as the regular internet outages I see from Comcast?
If that's the kind of service I can expect from government owned conduit, I say bring it on.
You will happily force others to pay for your happiness, it seems. The ends do not always justify the means.
Well no, I expect that the customers of the service (i.e. me) will pay for it through access fees charged to the ISP's.