The municipalities are not competing/wanting to compete with Cable TV providers or violate their contracts by laying their own fiber and providing internet.
You cannot condemn Comcast for being a rotten, expensive ISP with one voice and then deny that Comcast is an ISP with another. Yes, municipalities that are trying to run their own internet service are in DIRECT competition with a company that they have a contract with that demands all kinds of other things that the city doesn't want to provide.
The big broadband providers, including cable companies lobbied states to get special laws passed designed to kill the municipal projects.
Of course. Incumbent ISPs that have contracts that demand levels of service and types of services are at a direct disadvantage to local governments that don't have those contractual requirements. If the city wants to play in the ISP market, it should have to follow the same rules they enforce on commercial vendors -- ALL of those rules.
No: municipalities are only able to do this for Cable TV Service,
Which is how the Cable internet providers get access to the rights of way in the first place.
the franchise agreements don't apply to other services that the municipalities are not empowered to create a monopoly in for the first place.
The franchise agreements absolutely apply to services that municipalities cannot create monopolies in, like Cable TV. Exclusive franchises are a violation of federal law and have been so for a very long time.
Telecoms that put in and own fibre optics on the other hand are federally regulated and cannot be franchised by a municipality.
That's pretty funny, since I'm looking at my last CenturyLink (telecom) bill and it contains a specific line item fee for "franchise at 3%." Apparently my city can, and does, franchise the local telecom, despite this special "federal regulated" status they hold.