I'm no fan of PONs myself[1], but realistically they do still represent more than order of magnitude improvement over copper (or wireless
shudder), while also proven to be very economical to deploy. Lets remember that perfect is the enemy of good, I'd much rather have PON with 90% household coverage than active fiber with 10% coverage.
Practically also with 50G PON already being standardized and 200G in the horizon it will take decades before the limitations will be relevant; with typical 1:32 split you get comfortably 1G service to subscribers. I do expect gigabit connectivity to be generously good for 99% of users for long time.
It is also noteworthy that while PON was originally standardized as asymmetric, it seems like ISPs have had a change of heart and are widely deploying symmetric PON (i.e. XGS-PON). I don't know what is driving that change (Twitch streamers and Youtubers? :D) but I'm happy about that.
You blame ITU for PON, but IEEE has been pushing EPON (ethernet-PON) for almost as long (GPON ratified 2003, EPON in 2004). Ultimately standards organizations are driven by industry, not the other way around. With the industry having some very big players in it, I have no doubt that PONs would have happened regardless of their standardization status.
While PON is shared medium which is conceptually yucky, in consumer world its impact is less because lines are massively oversubscribed anyways. It doesn't make much difference if you have PON or active fiber if the bottleneck is the uplink.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41634415