If there's anything we can all get behind, it's the idea of the government controlling everyone's access to the internet.
But if I must use a single monopoly company that provides a service, I'd much rather get services from the government, because at least I have some semblance of a vote in the form of my actual vote. With a single corporate provider of a utility, I have no say at all.
Which is honestly the case in couple instances in my life. I have moved around the US NE quite a bit and multiple places I have lived only offer Verizon or Comcast but only one or the other. The current place I am in is Verizon which is fantastic because dealing with Comcast has always been a massive time sink and emotional/mental strain but I still have no choice in who provides me service.
One of the Tory ministers responsible for privatizing utilities in the 1980s said they did it because the utilities would be easier to control as private companies with a regulator.
There is no silver bullet.
I'm not sure how that's sensible. Are you being sarcastic?
Sure, there are problems with political intervention in state-owned companies (near term bias, etc.), but if it's the only means of holding state-owned companies accountable, and if a competitive market is untenable, then yes, voter-accountable politicians should be able to intervene in state-owned companies.
As it stands, with a company like PG&E, you have a half-solution, where it's a privately-owned monopoly but isn't directly accountable to its customers because they can't vote with their wallet, so it gets metric tons of regulation dumped on it instead as a half-measure that (obviously) doesn't work.
I'd still rather it in the hands of government than a monopoly corporation.