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.
I believe that universal availability arrangements that are currently in place have a fatal flaw. Telephone or cable companies never have an incentive to provide a good service at a good price. The infrastructure should be owned local government that provides open access to anybody.
A group called Utopia http://utopianet.org/ had a study that says they can provide fiber to ever home and business in a city much cheaper than the incumbent carriers. One factor is amortizing the cost over a 10 year period instead of the 18 to 36 month cost recovery used by incumbents for "enhanced services." Their model the city owning the broadband infrastructure much like it owns the roads. They then sell wholesale access to anybody who wants to provide service.
14 cities with 140,000 homes and businesses have an agreement with Utopia. They have a goal of having their six phase 1 cities completed within three years of their starting date in 2004. It will be interesting to see the actual feeds and speeds this experiment provides.