>Did Google do the political work here and leave the door open for competition?
Incidentally, AT&T did a lot of similar political work for others years ago when they were starting their U-Verse rollout.
They lobbied in numerous states for video franchises to be granted on a state-wide basis, rather than having to go to each individual municipality and negotiate deals. That allowed them to basically steamroll into an area.
When AT&T did this, the laws were written such that the cable companies selling service in the same areas could tear up their contracts with the municipalities and go statewide as well.
Yes, except there's still usually just one cable company in an area. The real effect of this is that a municipality unhappy with service now has no opportunity to oust a provider when the term of their franchise agreement is up.
Incidentally, AT&T did a lot of similar political work for others years ago when they were starting their U-Verse rollout.
They lobbied in numerous states for video franchises to be granted on a state-wide basis, rather than having to go to each individual municipality and negotiate deals. That allowed them to basically steamroll into an area.
When AT&T did this, the laws were written such that the cable companies selling service in the same areas could tear up their contracts with the municipalities and go statewide as well.