Why should optical fiber be standard? I want reliable, speedy network connectivity. It’s up to my network provider to determine the best means to do that. I don’t care if it’s tin can and string if it provides the service I need.

> Why should optical fiber be standard? I want reliable, speedy network connectivity.

The second sentence answers the question.

> It’s up to my network provider to determine the best means to do that. I don’t care if it’s tin can and string if it provides the service I need.

You assume that your network provider wants to provide "reliable, speedy network connectivity" and not "maximize profits with the smallest possible outlay".

Given they already have a bunch 'legacy' infrastructure, they're going to try to milk that existing plant as much as possible before shelling out another dime on anything new. That is not a recipe for "reliable, speedy network connectivity".

So municipal networks are a classic example of a natural monopoly, where it's more efficient to just have a single utility network vs redundant infrastructure.

Fiber is good for this because it's both cheap and effectively future proof vs consumer needs. Also, thanks to how IP works, a municipality can build out the physical network, then offer competitive options among ISPs delivering service on it if they like.

This generally results in much better service for consumers at lower cost, which is why Comcast, Century Link, etc, have been doing all the political maneuvering they can to pre-empt voters from choosing that path.

Fiber is cheaper, faster, and far more reliable. You've already constrained the problem such that fiber is the only possible solution, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Mostly because we're pushing the limits of long-range copper to offer currently-standard bandwidth levels, where as fiber is just getting started (you can go to 100Gbit on the same fiber by just swapping the optics at either end).

Also deploying copper is much more expensive than dirt cheap fiber optic