They wouldn't have access to that fiber, they would have to do their own fiber drop and I point out why that's bad in the remainder of my previous post.
Regarding ATT/Texas: Having a competitor is not what economists mean when they refer to competition.
They wouldn't have access to that fiber, they would have to do their own fiber drop and I point out why that's bad in the remainder of my previous post.
Regarding ATT/Texas: Having a competitor is not what economists mean when they refer to competition.
Presumably those competitors won't have access to fiber to the home. Besides the fact that it doesn't make sense to roll out separate fiber for each provider it is clear that municipal owned fiber would decrease barriers to entry and therefore increase competition. You simply cannot expect good outcomes in situations of monopoly/oligopoly regardless of who the monopolists are.
The problem is that when a company owns the last mile it has a natural monopoly. An incumbent being overthrown isn't the same as having long lasting competition.
It is a really bad deal because it eliminates municipal ownership of the infrastructure that would facilitate competition. Instead they are installing a new monopolist which will only seem to improve things in the short term.
Any large company should have a policy document which states the absurd rules including installation of French software versions and use of French keyboards, hiring and e-mail policies. I believe the policies only apply to businesses with over 50 employees so you would not have encountered them in the public sector.
Regarding ATT/Texas: Having a competitor is not what economists mean when they refer to competition.