If Internet access is an essential utility, and the city can't reach an agreement with ISPs, then the city itself should pay. This is what many cities are already doing, and the state laws prohibiting municipal networks are the issue addressed by the FCC.
How are they supposed to pay for Internet buildout when they're running 8-9 figure deficits servicing 9-10 figure debt loads, watching their municipal bonds downgraded, and scrambling to figure out how to pay down defined-benefit pension plans to firefighters, police officers, and teachers?
Name a major US city in a strong position to build out fiber Internet at their own expense and we can drill into the numbers.
Before I wrote, I pulled up the general fund numbers (debt load and deficit) for the 5 biggest US cities, and a couple random cities down around #15. I was going to write up a little table, but got pulled into a meeting.
This is one of those discussions where we have the benefit of actual numbers to work from. They're just a Google search away. If you're right, this should be an easy debate for you to win.
Slightly later
Figuring that the top 10 cities might put your argument at a disadvantage (it's harder to run a giant city than a smaller one and obviously more expensive to roll fiber out in one), I checked the next 10 cities on the list (by population). Quick observations:
* San Jose - huge deficits, pension crisis, closing police stations.
* Austin - like all the cities in Texas they seem to be doing OK.
* Indianapolis - 8 figure deficit, funding the city from reserves.
* Jacksonville - small deficit, service and pay cuts to keep the budget balanced.
* San Francisco - mid-high 8 figure deficits.
* Columbus - hard to find figures, probably doing OK.
It's interesting that the major cities in Texas are doing OK. Even for those that aren't doing OK, I'd propose that adding fiber rollout to the city's utility maintenance budget is the right thing to do in the absence of a better alternative.
