I'll bite on this: we absolutely would be better off with state provided internet infrastructure. I don't care nearly as much about the levels above that, but

I'll bite on this: we absolutely would be better off with state provided internet infrastructure. I don't care nearly as much about the levels above that, but the fiber in the ground should be a publicly owned utility. there's lots of info here on a campaign that I am involved in NYC: internetforall.nyc But the short version is: internet access is crucial to modern life (jobs, housing, civic participation), and access to it is very unequally distributed because we are beholden to a few monopolies. I live in a nice building in gentrified Brooklyn and I have exactly one choice of internet provider. That has been true of every building I have lived in in Brooklyn. Poor neighborhoods and public housing may not even have access to broadband at all. NYC has been sued by homeless advocates because many shelters have no access at all, but when NYC has spent money to try to subsidize internet through private providers they are so immune to competition that they just don't fulfill their contracts, and the city has no choice to but to continue contracting with them: https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/report-verizon-nyc-settle-six-year-broadband-dustup https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/report-verizon-nyc-set.... The reality is that providing the infrastructure to poor neighborhoods is not profitable and never will be, and the nature of the physical infrastructure leads to monopoly and corruption. Are some of the problems because of incompetence and corruption in local government? Yes, of course. But if more cities have publicly owned and publicly run networks then at least someone has to answer for the embarrassing state of internet access in the US.