Slashdot Mirror
The Battle Over AT&T's Fiber Rollout
Tyler Too writes "AT&T is facing heated opposition from some communities where it wants to deploy its U-Verse fiber network. Ars Technica has a feature looking at the situation in the suburbs of Chicago. 'Legal uncertainty is the rule when it comes to IPTV deployments by telecommunications companies. Neither Congress nor the FCC [has] weighed in on whether services like U-verse require their operators to take out a cable franchise from cities, and no federal judge has issued a definitive ruling.' It's not just Chicago, either: 'With AT&T set to upgrade its infrastructure to support U-verse across its wide service area, this is a battle that could play out in thousands of communities across the country over the next few years.'"
Because you think your internet communications are safe passing through the other providers? how quaint...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It is this kind of legal wrangling that goes on endlessly. Sure, if everything in the entire country was controlled by The Government there would be fewer people to sue over stuff like this. But I hardly think that would be a solution most people would find acceptable in the end. Like many things, it sounds good until you find out the details.
OK, so there should be competitive entities. Well, if you are going to spend a billion or so dollars you need to mitigate every risk, right? Unfortunately, the lawyers have set things up such that one risk that is very difficult to mitigate is someone else suing you over some perceived wrong. And yes, trying to run a fiber link is going to distrupt many businesses and push a few under. When those entities have been forced to jump through other legal hurdles to combat all the NIMBY lawsuits and "beautification" lawsuits (you know, those wires are really ugly...) and endless other lawsuits a lot of people feel very justified in suing over what will essentially put them out of business.
Sure, it is just the changing face of technology. But cable TV has been over-regulated in most US cities for so long that it is going to be a real battle to convince those owners that they bought nothing with all of their franchise fees, taxes, and public meetings.
This is just another example of the government protecting monopolies. Cable rates are outrageous primarily because we have few if any choices (around me, it's Comcast or DishTV or stuck with Antenna). We'd all be better off if the FCC would just allow some good old fashioned competition. Let more cable, phone, broadband, and internet companies offer cable-like options for consumers and the product and/or price will almost certainly improve.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Am I imagining things or haven't phone bills included extra fees,
and/or phone companies have gotten special breaks, in order to have
had fiber installed already?
Why isn't there fiber to my HOUSE yet? I'm seriously under the
impression this technology should be much more widespread than
it is, but don't know any facts. I just have the notion that
somehow we've been paying for something we're not getting yet.
I want my fiber already.
hpy
A little competition doesn't harm anyone. There was only one broadband (ADSL) provider here in my country (the largest monopoly). They charged whatever they wanted. One day they went too far (the infamous 4GB cap and $20 for the extra GB or fraction). What happened? Cable modem operators started operating in cities where they didn't provide service, with double the speed and no limits.
So, Telecom Argentina had to do something to keep their customers: They increased the speed 5x, kept the same price, and removed all kind of caps. That's just capitalism and competition in action. Yes, local cable operators want to "protect their investment", but most of these did that investment 10 years ago, and want to keep earning money without investing in newer stuff. So they go through the legal way in order to stop competition (or to buy a few more months). But, well, sooner or later they either do some spending or competition will eat them. It's just the way it is. It's everyting america stands for, right? Capitalism.
For all the talk from Republicans about "states rights", this is something they seem to have no belief in when it comes to cable television. Of course, with the DLC contingent of the Democrats coming to power, who knows if the Democrats will be any different. I'm quite sure we wouldn't have some of the public access television shows we have locally if those bills made much headway. Government then just hands over the rights to wire public streets with cable lines to some giant multinational monopoly. You can read about what has been going on this year here - here.
For those who don't want to RTFA, it's the usual mix of local politics, coupled with the regulatory snafu that's arising from the ever-decreasing "difference" between phone and cable companies.
Basically the phone company is doing a significant fiber upgrade, and trying to slip the whole "we're going to be doing tv soon" idea under the radar of the local people, who've already signed one of those craptastic cable monopoly agreements with comcast...The upgrade also includes large beige junction boxes, which is causing the predictable uproar among the affluent, yard-obsessed yuppies who live in the suburb in question. To add insult to injury, the community just got over a nasty fight with SBC (now part of Verizon), over doing fiber-to-the-house on their own initiative.
It's all a load of crap at this point anyway. The damn regulation we're using to play phone and cable companies off against each other is hilariously dated, especially since they're all sending the same damn bits, and mostly sending them over the same damn wires!
We need a simple law to force wire sharing (so we don't end up with five times the amount of bandwidth we need going into every damn neighborhood), and maybe a standard connector for data cables, and we need to step back, and let them fight it out to the death. Forcing those jokers to compete is the only way we'll get decent service for a decent price.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
We're not moving away from net neutrality... We never had net neutrality. Neither from the providers, nor from the government.
Here is a case (and the same thing is happening with Verizon's FiOS) where a company has wires in place, and is sending data, but the local government won't let them send certain data (digitally encoded TV shows) without giving the municipality a cut of their total revenue. It's ridiculous. Worse, this cut of the money is passed directly on to consumers, but most consumers (voters) don't realize that their local government gets between three and six percent of the local cable TV revenues. It's a huge tax that people don't know is there, and that's why they are surprised when their local government doesn't allow a new competitor into the market. Well here's the reason: It's so the town/city continues to get a fat check every month.
Not Verizon, AT&T...Got my mergers confused.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Then when it happens (of course) DSL won't work, the only remaining "high-speed" connection will be a slice of fiber bandwidth, the only ISP you can get will be MSN, and the bandwidth slice if you don't want television will be 256 kb/s.
I've never seen a technological advance yet that Ma Bell hasn't tried to prevent, and I've been watching them fight a rearguard action against the 20th Century (no, that's not a mistake) for over 40 years.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
"The upgrade also includes large beige junction boxes, which is causing the predictable uproar among the affluent, yard-obsessed yuppies who live in the suburb in question."
Nothing wrong with asthetics. Not that anyone has ever accused geeks of having taste.
"It's all a load of crap at this point anyway. The damn regulation we're using to play phone and cable companies off against each other is hilariously dated, especially since they're all sending the same damn bits, and mostly sending them over the same damn wires!"
It's not the bits, but who's indirectly and directly charging for those bits. And neither monopoly has control over the "same damn wires". Just the "last mile" part.
"We need a simple law to force wire sharing (so we don't end up with five times the amount of bandwidth we need going into every damn neighborhood), and maybe a standard connector for data cables, and we need to step back, and let them fight it out to the death."
Hush now. All the BT people need all the bandwith they can "borrow".
None of this would be an issue if AT&T was just selling BANDWIDTH. But, they're not. They plan on selling SERVICES as well, including television and telephone. Both of those are regulated by franchise agreements and AT&T is trying to do an end-run here.
I wonder if AT&T's U-Verse service will be tariffed? Will I be able to purchase that 20+ Mbps link as just an Internet link and without the additional TV & telephone services? Will they be required to make that band available to competitors?
Charles
(Residing in one of those suburbs mentioned in the article.)
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
AT&T and other phone providers don't seem to NEED a new "franchise agreement" from any local government because they pretty much already HAVE one and have had it ever since copper wires were laid in. It seems pointless, and fairly stupid actually, to demand that a change in the physical media from copper to fiber would demand some new operating agreement, oversight and (ahem) ***FRANCHISE FEES** with the local government. What we're talking about here is a change in content, not a change in the nature of the communications infrastructure. The local telcos have already had the rights to go bury copper cable all over suburbia, the fact that the new physical medium MIGHT be used to carry some new content is pretty much irrelevant, any more than the fact that phone lines could carry voice *but also* carry fax required any interaction with localities.
The issue is more likely that Comcast doesn't want the competition, never mind that they already HAVE it from systems that don't involve physical right-of-way, i.e., DirecTV.
Unrelated question, and obvious attempt to stir up conspiracy hounds: does anyone know if Comcast is subtly or overtly behind efforts to ban or restrict satellite dishes? Seems like there was a move in Boston to ban visible satellite dishes, largely in violation of FCC regs that don't generally permit localities to do so.
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
Seems to me an "upgrade" would be to an existing network that was regulated by existing laws...
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but I really think this story is an excellent example of the high quality journalism that is popping up at arstechnica. This is a very real issue that may well effect a huge number of people and it's good to see an informed, well written bit of investigative journalism coming from a new(ish) source. (read: not the old-media). Bravo to all the folks over at Arstechnica!
The most of the "public access" tv we have around here amounts to little more than free advertising for the incumbent politcians. And the "municipal service charge" that most fail to notice on their cable bills is not insignificant.
I just got fiber to replace my DSL and I couldn't be happier. IMHO, the laws should favor the consumers, making it easier for them to recieve and use the latest technologies.
www.americanjapan.com
Verizon just ran fiber to my community and is pushing their new TV services which I thought was IPTV, but this article says it's not?
..if companies such as Surewest are signing franchise agreements. They also offer the exact same service in Sacramento, as well as other areas in the region (Elk Grove, Natomas, etc). If they are in direct competition with companies such as AT&T, why the hell should AT&T be exempt from franchise agreements? I understand that AT&T probably does not plan on running fiber in Northern California central valley region, but some of these same rules should apply from one market to the next. I believe that the CPUC considers a specific class of provider as "Broadband Overbuilders", and they are under the same restrictions as Cable Providers. The FCC needs to strike down on companies like AT&T and make them pay like everyone else.
This is just another example of the government protecting monopolies. ... We'd all be better off if the FCC would just allow some good old fashioned competition.
If you think the FCC is a pro-monopoly bottleneck NOW, just WAIT until the Democrats rehack it, the next time they have a president and a congressional majority all at once.
The FCC under the recent regimes has been solidly behind keeping hands off the Internet, and keeping everybody ELSE's hands off it, too. To the point of suing to keep both the Federal court and state regulators' hands off. This is expected to change. (D's have a history of trying to control it.)
AT&T is deploying IPTV as a data service, as part of their (unregulated) internet service, and the rest of the ISPs are doing the same. IP networking is a "disruptive technology", breaking the locks of the air-broadcast, wired-broadcast, and satelite-broadcast carriers on video distribution, and opening it, not just to ISPs, but also to all who have a broadband connection.
Letting regulators at all governmental levels get their hands on networking content because it can emulate broadcast/cable services would spike this big time. So far the FCC has said a resounding "NO!" and wielded the power to make it stick. It's essentially the only regulatory body to actually defend openness (rather than using its power to increase its control). It's doing EXACTLY what you're asking for - against opposition by corportations and governmental organizations at all levels.
Be careful when wishing for changes.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
That's BS.
Those lines ostensibly belong to the teleco company, but exist by the good graces of the LOCAL governments. That land was taken from the local community for the greater good.
There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with local communities regulating what goes over essentially public property. In fact, I'd rather have localities controlling that then the federal government.
If AT&T wants to build a fancy new network without dealing with localities, all they have to do is secure their own rights of way from property owners. Build an entirely private network, and you don't have to deal with the local government.
But forcibly releasing locality control over public property to giant telecom companies? That's fascism.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Oregon and possibly Washington are have similar issues with Version FIOS TV. We've been having issues with bad faith negotiations on Verzion's part here in Oregon for the past couple years. Part of it is that cable is regulated by county in Oregon (although a some counties have banded together) and Version hasn't wanted to negotiate individually. Also, they didn't want to support the same local services that cable is forced to support. A lot of Verizons demands were simply untenable. In the end, I suspect that they had hoped the big TelCom bill this last summer would fix things in their favor.
I recently had FIOS installed in Beaverton, OR and asked the installer about it. He claimed that they been had given installation classes recently and expected it to be rolled out this year.
Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
What does that have to do with net neutrality?
You've apparently bought into some random smokescreen interpretation of it, spread by either an idiot, or by a telco.
If you want to try and make an analogue between network neutrality and TV and the government, it would be like the FCC broadcasting interference on every channel except those that paid extra. They would receive a channel allocation where it would come through crystal clear. Any other channel could pay up at any time if they wanted crystal clear reception, yet everyone would be just fine if the FCC quit with the interference. After all, think of the internet now: when was the last time google was "slow" for you? Yet the ISPs insist that google needs to pay up or their traffic will be slow, yet the only way this threat has any bite is if the ISPs involved broadcast the interference themselves.
No, what you've got is the usual taxation and corruption.
I wrote ATA (see article) early today asking if they accepted money from AT&T (they claim to be a grassroots advocacy group, "anti-cable").
No answer.
Hmmmmm.....
(The article was EXCELLENT, btw)
BWilde
No, the internet portion will be 6Mpbs down and 1Mbps up. The rest is reserved for TV. See https://uverse1.att.com/launchAMSS.do and click on Internet.
Verizon, however, is offering 15Mbps/2Mbps.
When uverse comes to me the internet portion won't even match what I am getting from cable is offering (10/1) now.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
With all the hundreds or thousands of individual franchise agreements its a wonder there is any cometition at all in any one particular city. The fix is a state wide uniform franchise agreement as recently passed (but yet unsigned) in Michigan
/ billenrolled/House/pdf/2006-HNB-6456.pdf
....
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006
The "Uniform Video Services Local Franchise Act".
AN ACT to provide for uniform video service local franchises; to promote competition in providing video services in this state; to ensure local control of rights-of-way; to provide for fees payable to local units of government; to provide for local programming; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies and officials; and to provide for penalties.
It sets statewide franchsise fees and rules and removed all the local political bullshit and graff.
Only a very few of the first 70 posts show any understanding at all of what's involved. I live in the western Chicago suburbs. Here's the deal.
1) AT&T wants to deploy fiber which will carry the triple play everyone's been drooling over for the last 10 years: Video, Phone, and Internet on one bill.
2) Comcast just got done with a very expensive infrastructure buildout in the last 3-4 years in my city, so that their network could deliver triple play services. Before that, large parts of the city could get NO broadband service at all, except from some (necessarily expensive) wireless ISP's that sprang up or $125+/mo IDSL at a whopping 144 kbps.
3) Comcast, by the franchise agreement, must serve all homes in the city or none. It's the ONLY consumer-friendly provision of the franchise agreement, IMO. So they were required to run the upgraded infrastructure to ALL parts of the city. We have an older downtown full of lower-income, mostly Hispanic residents, and newer, higher-income subdivisions. Guess which residents are very profitable to serve? Guess which residents would be left in the digital dark ages if Comcast weren't bound by the franchise agreement?
4) AT&T wants it both ways. They want to compete with Comcast. But they refuse to be bound by the ONLY consumer-friendly part of the franchise agreement -- serve everyone, or serve no one.
5) They also claim the right to drop their ugly green boxes wherever they want. Comcast doesn't get to do that.
Comcast sucks -- it's expensive, and their internet service blows compared to top-of-the-line DSL, let alone FIOS. But at least everyone can get service, and at least there aren't butt-ugly 5' dark-green steel cubes for Comcast all over the place. AT&T is fighting in court for the right not to serve everyone, and to put their butt-ugly, way too big green boxes wherever they want.
The moral of the story: Not all super-highspeed-broadband rollouts are good. Some of us here don't want AT&T ramming their accountant-driven priorities down our communities' throats because it's for our own good. "Our" own good is defined as "any household that is most likely to be most profitable for AT&T, and to hell with the rest. Oh yeah, and aren't those 5' dark green steel cubes really attractive?"
doctorcisco
The entire point of a franchise agreement is equal coverage for all residents of a town. Here's the deal: if cable companies want to sell into a city or town, they must meet certain service and coverage requirements. Without these franchise agreements, these new fiber services will only be deployed to rich towns (or rich PARTS of towns).
Look at the FIOS roll-out. Verizon says they are not equipped to handle "multi-dwelling" units. So they deploy FIOS to single family properties. If you live in an apartment or town-house - too bad. They can do this because most towns stupidly think it is a "data" service, and do not require a TV franchise.
I have standard copper pairs and coax cable in my townhome, why would a strand of fiber be more difficult to install than either of those?
I'll tell you why. Single-family properties tend to be owned by people with more money than those who own/rent townhomes and apartments, so Verizon uses the excuse that "multi-dwelling" units are too difficult to deploy.
I hate all these companies. They will only deploy service to rich people where they can make HUGE margins and screw all the rest.
We need municipal fiber and we need it now.
-ted
After reading the article it seems weird to me the plight of AT&T. They had the world at their fingertips then suffered the backlash before being written off.
Now they are trying to upgrade their network and get back in the game. The only problem is, we all want to hate them again because of the same old monopoly fears.
Well I hate to say it but that is how business has been done throughout time. If a business wants to be successful it has to keep re-inventing and evolving itself. AT&T are trying to do just that on the infrastructure side of things, but the client services side of it all needs to evolve as well.
Until recently I lived in rural Wyoming with little or no choice in broadband service. In fact I didn't even have a provider when living in western Wyoming. Don't even get me started on the prices and reliability. The overall problem is "economy of scale", so to speak but also the local commissioners desire to keep the low-tech, 20th century way of life.
Now I am living just outside a town in Ohio with some 100,000+ people within 15 mile radius and I have exactly one (1) broadband provider charging $50/mth for shoddy service. If I wanted to switch to DSL, VerizonWireless package, or satellite the letters I would have to associate myself with would be S.O.L.
So if AT&T want to come in and install a huge network to give me choice, I'm all for it. I know their ROI will be good enough without the gouging IPTV or telephone service (who still uses landlines anyways). I just want a value-choice, more reliable coverage, and better speed. I won't need their mickey-mouse customer service if it all works right and looks good.
Give the consumers a chance with more choice, and if you don't want the triple-pay deal then just tune out. You'll have choices.
Hey idiot, this has nothing to do with the FCC.
This is a problem with local political greed. Franchise rights = tax revenue = let's have a party and tax AT&T (and anyone else who wants to step into the fray.)
Dig into this, and I can guarantee that you will find Comcast, Time/Warner subverting this and protecting their franchises.
Cable franchises are going to go away. It won't be today, it might not be tomorrow, but it is coming. In the past, when it was expensive to put in a cable TV system in a city, to protect assets, a franchise was awarded as a form of protection. Today, with IPTV coming, you should be able to order TV from whoever has a GigE feed to your community. I think it's great that someone wants to come in and compete (which is a GOOD thing). Sadly, politicians only see it as a source of revenue. They want to negotiate high franchise fees. They have no interest in allowing lower costs/lower prices to trickle down to the consumer. And frankly, I blame it solely on the liberals "tax and spend" method of running government.
This is NOT what America is about. We the people are not sheep to be led to the trough to pay taxes. If you think AT&T or anyone else is going to just pay up and NOT pass these franchise fees/taxes on to the consumer, you've got another thing coming. Costs will go up, competition will diminish due to the gate for offering services being too high.
Look at your cell phone bill or home telephone bill. It's 20% taxes if not higher. Where does that money go? There are 4 or 5 "service funds" of various types. There are very few actual competitors in the phone business. The few competitors that do a good job are cherry-picking in areas where there are loopholes, or it's tremendously easy to offer service and pick away from the phone company. That is NOT true competition.
Every time someone wants to invest or roll out a product, politicians dance and sing about tax revenue. Taxes limit freedom, limit choice by increasing costs.
Slapping millions of dollars of franchise fees to bring in revenue for the community will do nothing but limit competition.
If that's what a bunch of idiots thinks is good, fine. Good luck. It doesn't work for the phone business, how come liberal politicians think it works for CableTV?
I hear a lot of arguments about franchise and competition here.
The corporate mainstream media already controls 99% of everything you receive as news,
where does Public Access and PEG (Public Educational and Governmental) TV come in?
Is this a plan to just kill Public Access?
Will they going to allow Public Access on their fiber?
You stupid people are more concerned about your fucking cable and telco bill you
don't step back to see the bigger picture of all the information you are being
denied.
Oh but I guess who cares what the government does, as long as you have your
football and beer.
Dumb motherfuckers!
WAKE UP! WAKE UP!
You already lost the 4,5,6,7,8th amendment, You giving up your 1st amendment TOO?!
Dumb motherfuckers!
WAKE UP! WAKE UP!
Here in Northern VA specifically the City of Alexandria, the broadband service is horrible. The main issue is that Comcast is the only provider. The City of Alexandria and the county of Fairfax are two different municipalities. Comcast is in Alex and Cox is in Fairfax. but there are not in each other's territory because that means they would have to compete with each other so they just don't apply for that license(sounds like collusion). Back the problem, I live in an old apartment(1940s) and Verizon DSL does not work because of the wire quality. I eagerly await the day when I can tell Comcast that I am dumping them for anyone else hopefully FIOS but I doubt that.
One of the aspects of the much maligned telco bill is that any company can apply for a national tv license instead of having to go to every municipality. Cable companies are running commericals says that it will put people(their workers) out on the street and that the created the industry from nothing so they deserve to have it the way it is. Shouldn't this be an opportunity for the Cable companies to expanded as well, as opposed to just protecting their island. I know that the telcos are not any better in the vast scheme of things but having the two monopolies duke it out has to be better than just being forced to be hostage to one company. I just want the options.
Question: With ABC and other channels allowing free viewing of Lost and other shows(on the web), couldn't the Cable companies sue for unfair advantage even though it could be over DSL?
"If you like Battlestar Galactica, you're probably a huge nerd." -Stephen Colbert
I believe that the local permitting process is the best level in government to demand a Net Neutrality clause. What do you think?
Could a Net Neutrality debate on the local level make sense? More sense then federally in Congress? I think it is really there where communities ca assert their rights and Interests.
Busy helping non technical users of OpenOffice.org - http://plan-b-for-openoffice.org/
Looks like the new FCC chairman is trying to change that and thinks that competition is good (??).
Check out this article -- FCC Preparing To Smooth The Way For TV Services By Phone Companies
No clue if it's true or not - I'm just hoping I have a better choice someday than Comcast or *gasp* *choke* Qwest!
Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, Bona fide, Electrified, Six-car FTTN Network! ...
What'd I say?
Ned Flanders: FTTN Network!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
Patty+Selma: FTTN Network!
Lyle Lanley: That's right! FTTN Network!
[crowd chants `FTTN Network' softly and rhythmically]
Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...
Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.
Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?
Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?
Lyle Lanley: You'll all be given cushy jobs.
Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?
Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.
Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.
Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.
I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
All: [singing] FTTN Network!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
All: FTTN Network!
Lyle Lanley: Once again...
All: FTTN Network!
Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...
Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!
All: [singing] FTTN Network!
FTTN Network!
FTTN Network!
[big finish]
FTTN Network!
Homer: FTT... D'oh!
I can tell you that AT&T's position is pretty goofy. As the former SBC in the area, their fear campaign against community-based broadband was pretty brutal. They bombed the mailboxes with little flyers like here and really soured me more on the company. Now they come around and claim that we need the exact service they were shooting down last year. Sheesh. Those boxes are also pretty huge.
So how does this fit in with their push for a tiered Internet? Is it "just data", or is it voice and high-bandwidth video that we need to be charged extra for? Which is it?
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
We've been raped up the ass by all the telcos over then not delivering one inch of fiber to the home and now we're going to compound that by fighting with AT&T when AT&T finally gives us what we've been paying surcharges for all these friggin' years.
People are stupid shits.
Let em deliver the fiber and if we don't like the way its going, then we can regulate their balls off.
BUT LET 'EM DELIVER THE FUCKIN' FIBER!!!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
They already built the network. They already have their wires. They already have permission to send data over them. This battle isn't about that. It's about what kind of data they plan to transmit.
And good graces my ass. They exist to benefit both parties. It's not like the town said "Oh, OK, I suppose you can run some cable and turn a profit." The town needed phone service as much as the company needed permission to run its wires.
Also, the wires frequently (if not usually) run over private property that the local government saw fit to grant rights of way over. So you can forcibly release private control of private property to the municipality, but if you want to do it at the state or federal level instead it's fascism? I think you need to rethink that a little bit.
As a former employee of Pac Bell who watched the takeover by SBC, and lived through a couple of other SBC mergers, one of the things I lerned was that acquisitions are driven primarily by CEO Ed Whitacre's ego, not the finical result. His public comments about Internet companies using "his pipes" makes clear (to me, anyway) that this is personal, not business http://www.businessweek.com/@@n34h*IUQu7KtOwgA/mag azine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm In the same article from last Nov, he was saying that ATT acquiring BellSouth want's very likely, it was then announced in March http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=ne ws&newsarticleid=22140 and now it's almost a done deal. His "business face" will never tell you what he's going to do, especially when he says stuff about "creating value": he's hidding something else that he dosen't want you to know about. As I read through the article with this in mind, I'm almost certain ATT is not telling what it's really doing, but it looks like people are starting to figure that out.
I dunno... this seems more like a battle of the usual NIMBY busybodies rather than any coherent argument.