I don't see how preempting a municipality affects whether an ISP allows other ISPs to run lines on their poles in a timely manner, unless the FCC added some regulation regarding that specifically? Some of the local laws were to straight up to prevent that behavior by monopoly ISPs.

All internet service lines should be seen as public property. We need to stop large ISPs from delaying or stopping lines to be run. We have no competition in my area since everyone is essentially at the same price and speed for $40/mo. We need regulation that incentivizes competition. 

I agree with @ARikozuM.  The internet is essential for communication this day and age, and should be treated as such. 

I'm not saying we should command it completely, but municipalities should not be allowed to protect those lines through contracts, nor to disallow others from coming in. The community should be allowed to run their own services to provide a minimum amount of speed. At the same time, ISPs should not be allowed to purchase smaller vendors in order to slim down competition. 

What about 3rd party networks that aren't regulated by any organisations (aside from FCC - no interfering with operation of other devices)? What about people who are startups and use their Tier 1 access to act as a secondary ISP for others? Would this choke out small players and low-volume network admins?

What do you mean by third-party? Can you elaborate on those? 

@ARikozuM People like you and I, who would be impacted most heavily (monetarily) by regulation determining how the lines should be administered/maintained/upgraded over time. For small-time folks, raising the money needed to keep up with those sorts of new regulation could be enough to push them out of the market:

• https://hackaday.com/2018/09/20/one-mans-journey-to-become-his-own-isp/

When regulation was mentioned, this was the first thing that came to mind:

• https://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2015/03/09/start-your-own-isp/

Quote

Unfortunately, many areas don’t have a lot of options when it comes to picking and choosing your ISP. That’s because the required infrastructure and local regulations create natural monopolies, and often act as a barrier to competitors.

 

Some say that the resulting lack of consumer choice is why ISPs get such bad ratings. They just don’t put in the effort to provide a good service because they know their customers have nowhere else to go if the want to go online.

 

But consumers are becoming more and more determined to uncover alternatives  — and even create their own.

The last statement can only ever apply if it isn't choked out be overbearing regulation, though  

And what overbearing regulation would that be? You can speak in general all you want but it will be disregarded as hearsay. I see this argument semi-frequently but I never see any examples of supposed overbearing regulation.

My township is a tourist trap that likes to favor local businesses, to an almost extreme level, which led to the monopoly here by the small ISP. It's only when said small ISP couldn't provide enough bandwidth for the businesses that they allowed Spectrum to come in which until recently only served the local school district in town. There was nothing overbearing about it, they just straight didn't allow non-local ISPs to operate here.

Which is why I'm always advocating for less regulation on small operations and more on larger operations. A small operation is less likely to cut corners because they have a larger chance of failing. 

Like CUDA's business and regulatory certifications. Why should I ask him to pay $100K for a cert, when I could subsidize his cert, based on annual operating revenue and expenses, by making larger operations pay more to cover his entry?

On to your topic.

That's the problem with these subsidies being given with vague targets and no enforcement. Giving the public ownership of the lines means that anyone could get access. If the city decides that they would like to open up a network, they should freely do so. If an individual wants to become an ISP, they would only need to cover the expenses. It's frustrating that ownership of an ever more increasing media is becoming a commodity that walls itself off to the poor or other viable competition.

We've regulated (even though those regulations were little more than pro-corporate protections) these guys for decades and have nothing to show for it. It's time to regulate the entry to ensure that smaller players get in the market without barriers and to regulate the large players for better service. 

Controlling the means to communication by private means has never led to better circumstances or offers. You eventually end up with a free market where only those with money can join in. That's the whole reason why I believe that patents and trademarks should be removed above a certain threshold. The free market does not work when the money only flows up.

NOTE: When I say "city" I'm referring to taxpayers in a community. 

@2FA The overbearing regulation that I see is that they can own and monopolize the towers and junctions. Is everyone supposed to build a tower for themselves? Hell no. Just make it public after a decade, just as our patent system works. You've X years to make a profit on your product after which it becomes a public good. 

"But it'll kill innovation!"

No, it wouldn't.

Do you think no one would make a new better car just because it won't be protected after X years? We already have cars being OEM unsupported after 10 years.

Do you think people will stop making insulin just because it isn't protected? We've already got three companies getting tax subsidies and selling to other countries for less than what we're paying them for. 

Do you think innovative medical technology won't be realized? That's bullshit again, because we're paying for those and we can certainly wholly fund it on taxes for the public good.

@ARikozuM I'm not disagreeing with you, he seemed to be saying that making the infrastructure a public utility would somehow be overhearing. But what you said (monopolization through ownership) also isn't overbearing regulation because it's not regulation at all, it's exercise of ownership rights. You muddy the information and the argument when applying the wrong definition (or classification) to something on purpose, and only serves to confuse others. I do agree the primary backbone infrastructure should be classified as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act and that poles shouldn't be privately owned when serving multiple people. Luckily a lot of the poles in New York are owned by National Grid so the ISPs can fuck right off.