Given that this sort of infrastructure tends to be a natural monopoly or close to one, it seems like a perfect case for either the government to build it, or some sort of quasi-governmental regulated utility, the same way power lines are operated. If you consider it an actual utility, the government is implicitly going to be guaranteeing it one way or another, because people aren't going to be willing to put up with a company going bankrupt resulting in service just being discontinued.
Even in states where energy production is free-market/deregulated, with consumers choosing which power generators to buy from at market rates, the actual lines over which the power flows are either government-owned or quasi-governmental, because competition for provision of power lines doesn't work particularly well.
Regardless of the pros/cons though, municipal experimentation in this area seems the least problematic to me. If the federal government or even a state is doing something, it's hard to escape and covers a large area. If a town is doing something, and people don't like it, it's much easier to just avoid that town. If some strategies clearly end up working much better than others, we'll be able to see which towns succeed in their strategies and which fail. Municipalities are also somewhat more constrained in their ability to waste unlimited taxpayer money, due to a mixture of fewer taxes they're allowed to levy, and the fact that people can just move to another town if things get too onerous.
Building power lines isn't the same level of risk. What's the probability a given house wants power? Basically 100%. Municipalities have lost their metaphorical shirts on fibre rollouts before. If it was similar in all relevant ways you wouldn't have such different outcomes. That's a sign your argument isn't capturing something about reality.
The reason why I'm not in a hurry to ban it is that I'm actually not upset to see people experience the consequences of their actions. It inevitably happens anyhow and trying to legislate it away has the usual problems that arise when you try to legislate an impossibility.
I suppose I shouldn't have used the dreaded l-word; we say nearly the same thing but you wouldn't know it from the karma outcome.
Even in states where energy production is free-market/deregulated, with consumers choosing which power generators to buy from at market rates, the actual lines over which the power flows are either government-owned or quasi-governmental, because competition for provision of power lines doesn't work particularly well.
Regardless of the pros/cons though, municipal experimentation in this area seems the least problematic to me. If the federal government or even a state is doing something, it's hard to escape and covers a large area. If a town is doing something, and people don't like it, it's much easier to just avoid that town. If some strategies clearly end up working much better than others, we'll be able to see which towns succeed in their strategies and which fail. Municipalities are also somewhat more constrained in their ability to waste unlimited taxpayer money, due to a mixture of fewer taxes they're allowed to levy, and the fact that people can just move to another town if things get too onerous.