Re: Now, as for wireline monopolies...
There's no money in that. Problem is converting existing copper wireline (including cable) to fibre is a massive expense. Then there's the maintenance, ie replacing poles, having linemen in Wichita and elsewhere who can climb poles and fix kit when there's storm damage, accidents or rural types taking potshots at it.. And regulation can make that worse, ie letting a competitor have access before you've recovered costs.
Which is why the Idaho model makes sense. It recognises it's a big investment and only really makes sense if you can treat it as a common/public good, ie subsidising the remote/rural connections. Towns have some flexibility given they get to upgrade their own telecomms infrastructure for all public works & services and save money not renting that off various telcos.. But it's not perfect, ie I have an up to 80Mbps GPON connection here in the UK, but 10Mbps is a lot more than a lot of US 'broadband' consumers can get affordably. And it makes it easier for a forward-thinking muni to do more e-government stuff and services.
Or just promote the benefits of Idaho living.. Why spend $4,000 a month renting in SF and putting up with Comcast when you could move to Idaho, enjoy a more relaxed and affordable life, and still Skype friends on the West coast.. Which may also mean attracting more businesses who find it hard to attract & retain staff in the big cities.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
