Yes, Google is offering free internet after a $300 up-front payment, in neighborhoods that otherwise justify fiber deployment. In contrast, for example, cable companies are generally required to offer basic service everywhere in the franchise area for $15-20 per month. Given that most of the cost of deployment is building to the neighborhood, and that neighborhoods are economically segregated in most cities, the former concession is much less onerous than the latter.

Again, I don't think fiber should be beholden to universal access. I'm just pointing out Google has won a major political battle here that has major precedential value.

In Kansas City, the "pick your plan" phase only came after the "qualify your fiberhood" phase.

http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-to-get-googl...

> After the rally, we’ll let you know if your fiberhood has reached its goal. If so, you can sign up for your service package. The first homes will get service shortly after the rally ends, and all qualifying neighborhoods will receive service before the end of 2013.

Fair enough, but:

> All you need to do for pre-registration is provide some basic information (like your name and address) and pay a $10 deposit [with a credit card].

When the results first came in, the fiberhoods were divided among racial and economic lines: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/21/google-making-digital-div....

Now Google did a lot after the fact to generate interest in those neighborhoods that had been left-out, and sign up more of them. But let's not forget they have substantial PR reasons for doing so.

My intention isn't to question Google's motives, but to point out that even Google has refused to accept build-out requirements, of the sort that are almost universally included in franchise agreements. What does that tell you about how these requirements impact competition in other markets? What impact do they have on potential fiber ISP's who don't have Google's PR motivations?