Thanks so much! I imagine you're right, I must have misremembered. Though as you insinuated, this is the same thing in practice: > In most cities, a startup ca

Thanks so much! I imagine you're right, I must have misremembered. Though as you insinuated, this is the same thing in practice: > In most cities, a startup cannot come in and build out neighborhood-by-neighborhood based on demonstrated demand. They're required to commit to building out the whole city in a short time frame, without regard to demand. -- EDIT I checked on this, and you're indeed correct. The franchise in my home town includes a non-exclusivity clause. As you said, it also contains a clause stating that "The Licensee shall make its Cable System Service" available to all residents of the town within seven business days of a request". So the network must cover the entire town. Finally, in the non-exclusivity clause, it states that if any other cable provider is ever granted a license with "more favorable or less burdensome" terms, then the town will renegotiate terms with Comcast. To me, this is the same thing as "granting a monopoly" in practice. But I appreciate your clarification! -- END OF EDIT I want to also point out: > The problem is not that municipalities are granting monopolies. In the case of Chattanooga that I mentioned, the law preventing the municipal ISP from expanding is unfair in the same way, even if this is not a case of a monopoly being "granted". Why shouldn't a company created by a town be allowed to compete in the marketplace?