You make it sound like Google gave up because it was unable to fight regulations designed to keep incumbents entrenched. Google got unprecedented concessions from municipalities in terms of franchise requirements, fast-track permitting, etc. For example, the kerfuffle in NYC with Verizon's FIOS buildout (whether it has built out to all housing units?) Google won't even bring fiber to any city that imposes build out requirements.
Your view of the world doesn't explain why Google doesn't build fiber to cities like Baltimore and LA that have been publicly disparaging their incumbent providers and begging someone to come build fiber and compete. Or why Google won't wire up Silicon Valley. Is it at all credible to suggest Comcast or whatever has more pull than Google in Google's own backyard?
I tend to agree with your overall point that regulated monopolies are the way to go for internet service. But that has its own set of challenges. The AT&T monopoly worked pretty damn well to tell the truth. They built what was at the time a gold-plated telephone network. It was also expensive for consumers, and the government was willing to let AT&T be profitable enough to make building worth its while. That's very different than how "utilities" are regulated today, where they deal with crumbling infrastructure because no politician wants to authorize raising water or sewer rates.
Google is slowly giving up because even with unprecedented concessions from municipalities it still can't access the infrastructure it needs to do its job.
The biggest municipal concession has been the "One Touch Make Ready" ordinances (in Louisville, Nashville) that theoretically should allow Google's installers access to poles without first waiting for red tape from existing cable, telephone, and power companies...
Those ordinances are now all currently locked up in court battles that may take years to sort out, with a byzantine individual lawsuit per city.
The biggest municipal concession has been waiving build-out requirements. You know that because Google won't even start projects in cities that impose build-out requirements, whereas it has already deployed fiber in many cities without one touch make ready ordinances.
(And again, that doesn't explain why Google hasn't tried to bring fiber to the Bay Area. If OTMR ordinances are really what drive fiber rollout, why not fight that battle on its home turf?)
I can see build-out requirements being a big issue to picking a next city, but I don't see it as the reason for why it looks like Google appears to be slowly stopping all efforts across the board in existing cities. OTMR fights hint that Google may be losing a war of attrition with the entrenched monopolies to inflated costs and infrastructure battles.
«If OTMR ordinances are really what drive fiber rollout, why not fight that battle on its home turf?»
I don't know much of nuance of geopolitics here, but I would assume that the cities that have started the OTMR battles think they are particularly underserved by incumbents, but more importantly may have more political jurisdiction in their respective states to pass OTMR ordinances/legislation within city limits. While Google has been the biggest suggestion influence and has been helping to fight the OTMR battles, it certainly seems like thus far the onus and a great majority of the work has been the cities themselves trying to reign in monopoly control incumbents. (Most of the cities even seem to be fighting for OTMR in spite of anti-regulationist-controlled state legislatures and public utility boards, where such a change might more naturally be easier.)
I think the question is more why hasn't the Bay Area tried to fight for OTMR ordinances than why hasn't Google tried to get the Bay Area to fight for OTMR ordinances.
As to why Google doesn't include the Bay Area at the top of its priorities, I'd assume it's economic as much as anything: they seem to be prioritizing places they can most easily compete against incumbents, and their values seem focused on "floating the most boats" for now by finding the cities that are most currently underserved. You may personally think the Bay Area isn't adequately served by Comcast, but have you seen some of the rest of the country that doesn't have millions of technical workers living in it? (Spoiler alert: we all have it terrible. Our for-profit infrastructure monopolies don't have our best interests in mind and most of our regulations and oversight has been defanged or destroyed.)
Places like Austin, Atlanta, Provo, etc., were not "underserved" relative to Bay Area cities before Fiber. I lived in Atlanta in 2007--we had the same Comcast packages you could get anywhere else.
The difference between Atlanta and Menlo Park is not that Comcast had better service in Menlo Park. It's that Atlanta is in a low-regulation red state and was willing to give tons of concessions and waive requirements it imposes on everyone else.
Moreover, deployment in most Fiber cities has gone forward without litigation. There was no major litigation in Kansas City, Provo, etc. I think the OTMR lawsuits are stupid, but pointing to them as the reason why Google is pulling back on fiber is willful blindness to the obvious. Google is pulling back on fiber because there isn't enough money in it.
Sorry, I was using the OTMR lawsuits as a proxy/definitive example for why there isn't enough money in it. I agree, the big problem is that there isn't enough money in it, I just disagree that build-out requirements are the big reason there isn't enough money in it. I may not have made that clear enough.
It's hard to control costs when the incumbents are doing everything in their power to delay and inflate costs. OTMR is one attempted solution to one particular angle in which the incumbents have a power to delay and inflate project costs. The OTMR lawsuits are emblematic of how far the incumbents are willing to go to continue to delay and inflate costs (to years in court and years of legal fees) and how much "defense depth" they have to accomplish it (the parties involved in the court cases are different incumbents in each jurisdiction).
Build-out requirements can be estimated in the fixed capital costs of a project, assuming no other interference. The need for OTMR and the current OTMR lawsuits are proof that the interference exists and is not easily contained/constrained and quite probably not even possible to estimate as they will be different in every city in the country.
I use OTMR as an example because it is the most visible example. I mostly suspect it is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of cost issues into a project like Google Fiber.
I can get up to 500/500 (bumping up to 750/750 later this year) and I live in a Chesapeake Bay community that until two years ago didn't even have public water/sewer. That doesn't count the Comcast 2 gig I could also get.
But then again, my fiber hangs down from a teetering utility pole and is held in place by a single, bent rusty nail. Unlike in SV, it's cheap and easy to build here.
Your view of the world doesn't explain why Google doesn't build fiber to cities like Baltimore and LA that have been publicly disparaging their incumbent providers and begging someone to come build fiber and compete. Or why Google won't wire up Silicon Valley. Is it at all credible to suggest Comcast or whatever has more pull than Google in Google's own backyard?
I tend to agree with your overall point that regulated monopolies are the way to go for internet service. But that has its own set of challenges. The AT&T monopoly worked pretty damn well to tell the truth. They built what was at the time a gold-plated telephone network. It was also expensive for consumers, and the government was willing to let AT&T be profitable enough to make building worth its while. That's very different than how "utilities" are regulated today, where they deal with crumbling infrastructure because no politician wants to authorize raising water or sewer rates.