An interesting editorial in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review equates municipal authorization of privately funded networks with municipal control: I find this argument quite interesting as I've long said that the deals that allow infrastructure use through streamlined or cheaper rates for metro-scale wireless providers in places like Philadelphia, Tempe (Ariz.), and Portland (Ore.) would create a de facto franchise and de facto exclusivity even though contracts and federal law (the 1996 Telecom Act, for one) would allow non-exclusive use of those public rights of way and poles.
The de facto part comes from that fact that a winning bidder for a network may use only their own funds, but they typically receive guaranteed contracts from the city for data and telecom service. A competitor would need to drum up other business to make the rollout profitable.
The Tribune-Review cautions that cities could turn muni-authorized networks into unfair competition against ISPs, which is an interesting turnabout from the allegations of unfair competition against incumbent operators. Municipal contracts should require a hands-off approach to pricing that would prevent cities from forcing their risk-bearing private operators from underpricing the market beyond the accounts and subsidization needed for low-income accounts.