I was under the impression that fiber needs to be underground; is running it over utility poles a common occurrence?
In Washington state (Whatcom/Skagit/Island county), I would estimate that most of the fiber optics are aerial. Some extra work needs to be done to dampen vibrations due to the wind, but this is relatively simple.
Aerial fiber can be very inexpensive. In Bellingham, a pair on a 70km run could be had for the about the same recurring cost as a T1, and build-out is fast and cheap.
It'll be interesting, Kansas City can have pretty intense weather.
The networks rightly point out that they invested lots of money in their infrastructure, and argue that therefore they should be able to do whatever they want with it.
Net neutrality proponents would reply that the public has invested in the network, too: we've allocated a scarce resource, like space on our utility poles or under our roads, to the ISP. (Not to mention friendly policies, actual subsidies, etc.) Only a limited number of wires can be put on a pole or under a road.
If an ISP can provide service without using any scarce public resources, they should be able to sidestep regulations. But I can't think of a way to do that: it's either physical space or radio spectrum, neither of which is infinite.
Net neutrality legislation may be a bad idea; I don't pretend to understand all of the issues involved. I would certainly be irritated if my tax dollars subsidized an ISPs infrastructure, and my road was torn up to lay their cable, and they then took that service and throttled YouTube in an effort to give their own video service an advantage.
But maybe that's a boogeyman argument and such things wouldn't happen.
