This is too true. It's more regulatory moats than regulatory capture. At any rate, it's not profitable after, probably, the first time.
It's strange how cities force companies to wire this way. It's as if they forced a luxury brand, Hermès, say, to open a store in the most shit-hole, criminal part of town in order to gain the right to open a store in the yuppie part of town.
> Access to the Internet is increasingly viewed as a right and/or an essential service. Access to overpriced handbags, not so much.
Clothes are seen as essentials in Western society. Luxury brands, not so much. Yet access to internet and access to cutting-edge broadband are treated similarly by regulators in the U.S. That's the asymmetry.
...access to internet and access to cutting-edge broadband...
At the pace technology advances, there's not so much difference between the two. Since companies are still constantly pushing the limits of technology, the majority of the benefits of connectivity come at the higher end of the bandwidth spectrum.
