| The lack of provider competition isn't a natural monopoly. It's a government-created monopoly/duopoly in a given market. Instead of regulating the one or two providers in a market, we could try a different model that improves competition. One way is to do city-owned and maintained layer 1, like Chattanooga (http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/20/technology/innovation/chatta...), and sell access to as many ISPs want it. The other way is to break the city franchise model. Cities generally grant franchise rights to cable and phone companies, excluding other providers for a promise of universal coverage and a few percent of the revenue. The latter is what Google Fiber is asking for from the cities it goes into: - It wants blanket access to all of the telephone poles and other right-of-ways, without having to do per-pole applications, application fees, and approval process that can take weeks/months each. - It wants to not have to do universal access, but rather only roll into neighborhoods with a high enough density to be profitable. - It won't pay the city a percentage of revenue. Instead, it agrees to build out free internet access to schools, public spaces, etc. Google Fiber's model has the advantage of not relying on a city to properly maintain a fiber network, but the disadvantage of leaving poor communities un-served. |