&gt; I have no idea what backroom deal Google made with Provo, Utah, but something similar HAD to happen for Google to win the fiber for only $1.<p>Oh god. You&#x27;re great. :)<p>&quot;Google will take over Provo’s fiber network and improve upon it as soon as the acquisition is official ... which will reportedly cost Google about $30 million. But Google will also take over Provo’s remaining construction loans, which reportedly need to be paid for another dozen years at the very least, according to the official agreements released by city officials on Thursday.<p>Google will also be covering residents’ costs, as Provo households have reportedly been paying $5.35 a month on top of their utility bills regardless of whether they used iProvo.&quot; [0]<p>Another thing you&#x27;re forgetting: iProvo was owned by Provo, UT. Public utilities have a different set of incentives and obligations than private corporations. This means that deals like &quot;Hand over control of the municipal fiber network to a company in exchange for that company assuming all related debts, as well as performing massive upgrades to said network in short order, on their own dime.&quot; make <i>lots</i> of sense, if you can trust that the company will live up to their word. I would be <i>shocked</i> if there wasn&#x27;t a provision in the agreement that would force Google to hand the network back over to Provo if they failed to meet their obligations.<p>Google has proven that they&#x27;re <i>serious</i> about delivering gigabit symmetric connections at <i>very</i> reasonable prices to residents in the areas that they&#x27;ve been able to enter. The incumbent telcos have demonstrated time and time again that they&#x27;re <i>very</i> committed to high-speed Fiber-To-The-Press-Release deployments, as well as token FTTP deployments in politically important areas... and nowhere else.<p>&gt; ...Kansas City&#x27;s deal required Google to wire up the schools with 1 GBPS internet...<p>Which is a <i>perfectly</i> reasonable stipulation. If you&#x27;re not going to require universal service (just as ATT, Comcast, &amp; etc. are <i>not</i> required to provide for data services), it&#x27;s entirely reasonable to demand that a private operator provide service to things like schools and libraries to operate in an area.<p>&gt; Politics is politics, no matter the players.<p>You <i>really</i> need to look at the vast gulf between the games that incumbent telcos play (e.g. banning municipally owned and operated fiber service in the name of creating a &quot;level playing field&quot;) and Google&#x27;s acceptance of public-good service requirements in exchange for reduced pole attachment fees.<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ibtimes.com&#x2F;google-fiber-utah-why-provo-sold-its-39-million-internet-service-google-just-1-1205081" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ibtimes.com&#x2F;google-fiber-utah-why-provo-sold-its-...</a>