The city sponsors a company and you expect it to have competition and its own services to be focused on consumers? Why would anyone go into that risk when profits can be made much easier, and how do you expect the non-sponsored companies to gather enough profit to build up their infra?
Sorry, I should have clarified. Verizon is not available at my apartment. I get Spectrum and Spectrum only. The city paid Verizon to ADD competition, Verizon took the money, and then they just… didn’t fulfill the contract.
But that's what I meant. You can't expect someone who gets paid for nothing to just go and increase their risk of failure infinitely by doing something. Not doing anything is much more profitable in their situation.
I'd never pay a telecom company before I got my services and used them. They always found a way to screw me over when I did (many years ago). Your city just got the classic treatment on a massive scale.
It's not like the situation is markedly better elsewhere in the country. Sponsor a company, get a single option. Don't sponsor a company, still get a single option.
In one scenario, the government signs an exclusive contract. In the other, the absurd levels of control over government exercised by "private" entities in the name of "free speech" (thanks Citizens United) ensure perpetual corruption and de facto private ownership of public resources.
All paths lead to monopoly. The only difference is the level of hypocrisy.
