&gt; I don&#x27;t know why you are twisting the story around, but I&#x27;m not inclined to trust you or your data, or your arguments anymore.<p>Uh. I&#x27;m not twisting anything, bro. My information came from the International Business Times article that I linked to earlier.<p>I also expect that you haven&#x27;t read the franchise agreement entered into by Provo and Google [0] or the Fiber Lease agreement [1] or the Asset Purchase agreement [2] or the Network Services agreement. [3]<p>If we read through those (and I <i>strongly</i> encourage you to do so), we discover that the only thing that the International Business Times got wrong was the claim that Google was going to be taking on the financial liabilities of Veracity Networks LLC (the previous company that was in charge of running, managing, and maintaining iProvo) [4]. I could see why they mixed that up... the language in the Excluded Assets section is slightly tortured.<p>&gt; A serious offer would have had other ISPs at the table to counter-bid against Google.<p>Are you basing this on more than just the single complaint from CenturyLink?<p>Look. Google has <i>proven</i> that they&#x27;re both able to and serious about deploying gigabit municipal networks and pricing access to those networks at a rate that kicks the <i>shit</i> out of anything <i>any</i> other commercial ISP offers.<p>Read the official agreements. You&#x27;ll see that they&#x27;re all bog-standard. Actually <i>dig</i> in to Google Fiber&#x27;s performance and track record (rather than just skimming the froth from some pundit&#x27;s clickbait). Do some research and discover that what Google is doing today <i>should</i> have been done in the mid 1990&#x27;s [5], except nationwide. Most of the entities who are <i>scrambling</i> to counter or stop Google (and -generally- municipally-operated fiber) <i>now</i> are the ones who reneged on those promises decades ago. (But were <i>more</i> than happy to retain the incentives and tax breaks.)<p>Another thing. Remember the fact that iProvo was <i>sold to</i> another private company <i>five years</i> before Veracity and Provo decided to let Google Fiber manage, maintain, and upgrade iProvo. [6] In your opinion, how does <i>this</i> situation [7] compare to a city changing the specialist company to whom they contract out power plant operation and maintenance? :)<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.provo.org&#x2F;home&#x2F;showdocument?id=2298" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.provo.org&#x2F;home&#x2F;showdocument?id=2298</a><p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.provo.org&#x2F;home&#x2F;showdocument?id=2300" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.provo.org&#x2F;home&#x2F;showdocument?id=2300</a><p>[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.provo.org&#x2F;home&#x2F;showdocument?id=2296" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.provo.org&#x2F;home&#x2F;showdocument?id=2296</a><p>[3] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.provo.org&#x2F;home&#x2F;showdocument?id=2304" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.provo.org&#x2F;home&#x2F;showdocument?id=2304</a><p>[4] I bet you weren&#x27;t aware that there was a commercial entity running Provo&#x27;s network before Google Fiber came in. ;)<p>[5] Albeit at 40-&gt;100mbit symmetric.<p>[6] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.sltrib.com&#x2F;story.php?ref=&#x2F;sltrib&#x2F;news&#x2F;51766375-78&#x2F;veracity-iprovo-network-default.html.csp" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.sltrib.com&#x2F;story.php?ref=&#x2F;sltrib&#x2F;news&#x2F;5176637...</a><p>[7] Namely, Provo switching the manager, maintainer, and upgrader of iProvo from Veracity Networks to Google Fiber.