Sorry to divert off topic, though but: I wish local governments would start treating the Internet as a basic utility; like electricity. You'd have 2 entities involved: the government (PUC) which would, for a very basic rate, maintain your fiber; and an ISP which would actually route your traffic to/from the Internet. So, as a consumer, you'd pay a small amount ($5/mo?) for the fiber; and then depending on your service requirements, pay some gateway to get out to the 'net. This way, Comcast would just be a gateway provider. GW providers would offer different types of services to set them apart from each other (VPN? Movies? Music? etc.).
In a large minority of states, they can't. In North Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, and 16 other states[1], state law prohibits any form of municipal broadband, including acting as a common carrier.
The reasoning is that municipal networks can be (but usually aren't) funded by local tax dollars so it represents a theoretically unfair advantage relative to private corporations. I find that reasoning specious especially considering I can look out my window in Texas and see a city water tower standing right alongside a private water supply company's tower, yet both departments are funded solely by ratepayers, not out of a general tax fund.
That's my dream. :-)