Municipally owned/maintained FTTH with ISP access from an analog to a CO is a good thing IMO and something that the incumbents have used the courts to shut down

Municipally owned/maintained FTTH with ISP access from an analog to a CO is a good thing IMO and something that the incumbents have used the courts to shut down in the past[1]. The Wired piece makes a seemingly legitimate argument (franchise agreements increase the cost for new entrants) while ignoring the actual alternative (which would dramatically decrease the cost for new entrants) that those outside of the industry may not even be aware of and in that regard is a bit dishonest. Why is this coming up now? One of the interesting tidbits I picked up from industry coverage[2] of the current round of FCC rule making is "Wheeler intends to nullify state laws that prevent local governments from establishing broadband service". Which is something I don't think the industry wants to happen. So, yeah open access is great but giving cities the "If you don't provide acceptable internet service we will" stick is valuable as well. [1] http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/07/telco-wont-install-fiber-sues-to-keep-city-from-doing-it/ http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2008/07/telco-wont-inst... [2] http://www.cedmagazine.com/blogs/2014/05/fcc-four-more-months-of-bickering-about-net-neut http://www.cedmagazine.com/blogs/2014/05/fcc-four-more-month...