The American Society of Civil Engineers says that U.S. infrastructure is underfunded to the tune of $3.6 trillion: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org. People like to compare municipal broadband to municipal water, but the ASCE gives our water and wastewater systems a grade of 'D'.
I defend NYC because as corrupt as it may be, over the last 20-30 years it has a pretty good record of getting municipal projects done. It has functioning subway, regional rail, etc. It has invested in protecting its water sources, etc.
Most American cities have not done as well as NYC in that regard. E.g. Atlanta's ancient sewer system dumps untreated waste into the city's main river after every heavy rain, and the city's water supply is entirely at the mercy of the water levels in Lake Lanier. After a drought a few years ago, the city came this close to running out of water.
This is not voodoo economics. In the absence of profit motive, you need social consensus and a forward-looking bureaucracy to ensure that public infrastructure receives adequate funding. Most American cities do not have either.
> you need social consensus and a forward-looking bureaucracy to ensure that public infrastructure receives adequate funding. Most American cities do not have either.
Absolutely, because it's trivially easy for a somewhat small minority to simply stand around and say "nope, nope, nope, not gonna do any of that" and then retort "why are all of our bridges falling down around our ears?" 10 years hasn't changed anybody's mind, so why not build some Internet connectivity to let people work from home?
citation needed... I know government has a reputation for being wasteful and corrupt, but weird for you to defend NYC.