Future Implications (Score 1)

While this one bill is not necessarily the "turning point" that alarmists might play it out to be, this is indeed a very serious matter for telecommunication utilities. Let's consider the following points:

• Unlicensed frequencies means a rather unobstructed process to establishing service. Roll-outs are quick, and rather difficult to challenge on a legal basis.
• Antenna and router technolgy get faster/smaller/lower-power/longer range with each revision. If the municipal utilities were to use the existing telephone/power poles for distribution (or perhaps even turn those wires into antennas?), suddenly the most expensive item in the system is the labor to install it.
• WiFi is two-way by design, and with smart bandwidth management, can likely give more consumer satisfaction than the currently more-capable cable. (BTW: Anyone care to duplicate that model of municipally-sanctioned local monopolies? I'm not excitied by that prospect.) It's long past telephone lines in usefulness.
• And finally, IPV6. Low-power chipsets and enough addresses for every item in your house.

I think the question is not "Should this be a public-utility?", but "How can we involve private sector competition to fight/pay for access to the consumer, wherever they are?"

My personal feeling is that local municipalities should "own the road", but consumers should be free to buy their (NHTSA-approved) cars from anyone, or ride the bus, taxi, limo, bicycle, walk, or choose a toll road.