Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • Broadly (because I don't remember the details right now) a few municipalities have tried to run their own pipes and ISPs, and have been fought tooth and nail by the existing providers (AT&T and Comcast spring to mind), who got the state lawmakers involved to try to quash it. I believe there was a case of this in Tennesse two years ago. Ars Technica should have something about it.
    – jscs
    Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 19:08
  • That is where the real fight is and we need to prevent these companies from obtaining local monopolies. If they don't have these monopolies and leverage at the local level, they surely won't have it at the federal level. Commented Jul 12, 2017 at 23:01
  • In my municipality, it is a duopoly on the utility pole: cable company and phone company (if we don't include the copper wire for electricity, which isn't used for broadband here). Any competing ISP that needs a wire (or fiber) must piggyback on one of the two that are already on the utility poles.
    – Tim
    Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 9:27
  • I am interested in knowing if there is any legal leverage those old right-of-way agreements might offer. Did they give the right-of-way holder carte blanche, or were there some restrictions?
    – Tim
    Commented Jul 13, 2017 at 9:29
  • I'm sure it varies by location.
    – jscs
    Commented Jul 15, 2017 at 13:00
  • Ars article about the Tennessee situation: arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/…
    – jscs
    Commented Jul 16, 2017 at 21:06