The congressman from Massachusetts wonders why rich, white suburban neighborhoods get fiber first: Look, we all know that it's about profit. Let's not pretend otherwise. So it's not strange that Verizon and SBC (in Chicago) are choosing suburbs and neighborhoods that have more money to put in fiber first. They're more likely to buy the service.
But doesn't his lend credence to the idea that incumbents have a motivation to follow the money while municipalities try to offer and extend services to all residents? I don't think Verizon or SBC's actions are redlining: it's nothing personal, as redlining often is.
It's about whether--and make up your own mind here--universal availability is a social good or not, and how that gets funded. Through regulation that forces companies to levy fees to all subscribers to fund universal accessibility at whatever cost, or through community-based or town-based services that may impinge on some private profits at the interests of extending access.