> SEC. 7. AWARD OF FRANCHISES; PROMOTION OF COMPETITION.
(a) ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE FRANCHISES.-
(1) AMENDMENT.-Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541(a)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following. ; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection.
Most big cities--which have the density to have multiple viable wire-line competitors--don't have competition for the same reason they have high housing prices. They make it onerous to build infrastructure. Baltimore, for example, would be a great Google Fiber city. It has city-owned conduits everywhere that would make deployment relatively easy. But nobody wants to build fiber there, because the city insists that every neighborhood has to be wired up, without regard to potential demand: https://www.wypr.org/post/why-comcast-one-and-only-cable-and...
> “We’ve, in fact, asked other cable operators if they’re interested in coming into the city and, so far, nobody else is,” says Minda Goldberg, a chief solicitor in the city’s Law Department.
> But don’t pop the champagne. Many factors could derail the progress. One is a complaint sometimes raised when Google, in particular, starts negotiating with a community. The complaint? The new investment will create a digital divide because Google does not commit to connect every neighborhood. The argument, while sometimes well-intentioned, ignores history, economics, and the reality of the digital divide. Moreover, its proponents fail to acknowledge the consequences of their arguments.
> As we have seen in Gig.U negotiations, must-build requirements make projects unsustainable. Communities can wish for anything they want but if the economics don’t work, it won’t happen. Recently, Los Angeles put out a request for proposal (RFP) seeking a guaranteed citywide fiber build out. Broadband policy expert Harold Feld correctly noted, “I look forward to their RFP for a unicorn supplier, because I think it's about as likely under these terms.”
> SEC. 7. AWARD OF FRANCHISES; PROMOTION OF COMPETITION. (a) ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE FRANCHISES.- (1) AMENDMENT.-Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541(a)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following. ; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection.
The 1996 Telecom Act also mandated non-discriminatory competitive access to poles and rights of way: https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/635DF852-FCB3-B3A2-D381-9A307381F....
Most big cities--which have the density to have multiple viable wire-line competitors--don't have competition for the same reason they have high housing prices. They make it onerous to build infrastructure. Baltimore, for example, would be a great Google Fiber city. It has city-owned conduits everywhere that would make deployment relatively easy. But nobody wants to build fiber there, because the city insists that every neighborhood has to be wired up, without regard to potential demand: https://www.wypr.org/post/why-comcast-one-and-only-cable-and...
> “We’ve, in fact, asked other cable operators if they’re interested in coming into the city and, so far, nobody else is,” says Minda Goldberg, a chief solicitor in the city’s Law Department.
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/holding-back-high-speed-intern...
> But don’t pop the champagne. Many factors could derail the progress. One is a complaint sometimes raised when Google, in particular, starts negotiating with a community. The complaint? The new investment will create a digital divide because Google does not commit to connect every neighborhood. The argument, while sometimes well-intentioned, ignores history, economics, and the reality of the digital divide. Moreover, its proponents fail to acknowledge the consequences of their arguments.
> As we have seen in Gig.U negotiations, must-build requirements make projects unsustainable. Communities can wish for anything they want but if the economics don’t work, it won’t happen. Recently, Los Angeles put out a request for proposal (RFP) seeking a guaranteed citywide fiber build out. Broadband policy expert Harold Feld correctly noted, “I look forward to their RFP for a unicorn supplier, because I think it's about as likely under these terms.”