Don’t Blame Big Cable. It’s Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition
I think it is absolutely key to look past all the rhetoric and see what Google is actually asking for in return for building fiber.<p>> In Kansas City and Austin, local governments wanted Google Fiber more than they wanted kickbacks. So they expedited the permitting process, gave Google rights-of-way access for little to no cost, and allowed Google to build-out selectively — i.e., in neighborhoods where consumers actually expressed demand.<p>Kansas City agreed to get the permits done in 5 days. Provo sold Google for $1 a fiber network they had spent over $30 million constructing. Most if not all of the cities declined to impose build-out requirements: enough users had to sign up in each "Fiberhood" to justify Google deploying there.<p>This stands in stark contrast to what happens when companies try to deploy fiber or cable in other places.<p>Read Comcast's franchise agreement for Wilmington, DE, a small, poor, city of about 70,000 people: <a href="http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf</a>.<p>In addition to the hefty franchise fee, paid out of gross, the city extracts a couple of million dollars in funding for government programs, and imposes a built-out requirement that requires Comcast to build out to every neighborhood above a certain (low) density, even if enough customers don't sign up to make it profitable. Similar build-out requirements killed FIOS deployment in the city: <a href="http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/verizon-defends-honor-wilmington-fios-talks/2008-12-08" rel="nofollow">http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/verizon-defends-honor-wil...</a>.<p>In short, I can't have FIOS because Verizon wasn't willing to build it out to all the neighborhoods in the city that have 30-50% of its residents living under the poverty line.<p>This sort of article typifies the local response: <a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023420101_briercolumn21xml.html" rel="nofollow">http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2023420101_b...</a>.<p>("Once cities provide these handouts, they don’t have much leverage. They’ll end up bowing and scraping and hoping that Uncle Google throws a bit more fiber their way, someday. The experience in Kansas City — where suburbs are stuck waiting for Google to extend its fiberhoods — suggests that cities in a region targeted by Google Fiber should work together on setting expectations and deadlines. Yes, a provider like Google may abandon a city that doesn’t play along. But is that such a loss if the company ends up cherry-picking and making the market less attractive to other providers — including public utilities — that might come and provide fast broadband for everyone?")<p>In other words, they want to subject fiber deployment to the typical class warfare that characterizes municipal politics. It's better for nobody to have fiber than for wealthier areas to get it while communities that can't afford it don't. In New York City, the mayor has turned Verizon's FIOS deployment into an economic justice issue and hired a civil rights lawyer: <a href="http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140219845/mayor-pushes-verizon-to-discount-fios-for-poor" rel="nofollow">http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140219/TECHNOLOGY/140...</a>.<p>Who do you blame for not having fiber? How many cities would already have competitors deploying fiber if they had adopted the kind of regulatory regimes Google is demanding as a pre-condition for launching fiber?