I am not a fan of telecoms but I can't oppose then on this one. Removing restrictions allows telecoms options which lets rent to go lower, no?

But this isn't removing restrictions, this is adding a new restriction, a positive type of restriction which FORCES local governments to rent. No one should be FORCED to rent their property.

Government owned property, public property has a duty to serve the public. Capping rates and allowing antennas in certain areas provides competition in the broadband market which serves the public interest.

The public also benefit if municipalities can charge fair market prices and use the income to fund projects that more directly benefit residents, or lower taxes. Forcing local governments to charge below market rates is little more than corporate welfare for the telecom industry.

> Forcing local governments to charge below market rates is little more than corporate welfare for the telecom industry.

I am sorry I spoke without understanding the entire situation but I have sincerely zero sympathy for local governments in this case.

I concede I'm wrong though. The problem I see now is here is the fact that an incumbent will "rent" all the good spots for free, claim it is under development, or somehow basically starve competition.

I hadn't thought of that. I was trying to avoid the situation like when the first 3G iPhone came out and Cingular was saying things like they can't find anywhere to put network equipment in San Francisco.

Basically, my thought was this pits two categories of rent seekers against each other and was hoping that we could exert pricing controls on wireless carriers using this but I was clearly too optimistic.

Telecom consumers of public resources are not necessarily the local public. Proper veto by the governor; property rights over faster mobile connections and the expense of local sovereignty.

I do not think that local sovereignty exists in the US -- the states are the sovereign from which local authority stems IIUC.

Home rule is the term I should've used.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule_in_the_United_Stat...

"Capping rates and allowing antennas in certain areas provides competition in the broadband market..."

I don't believe I've seen an argument that market interference, "capping rates", is good for the free market recently.

You haven't been in many internet arguments about economics, then. There are a lot of us who think that various targeted types of regulation and government market participation can actually lead to better markets. I'm not sure it's the case this time, but the general sentiment is common.

It depends on how you define "free market", exactly. The definition that is popular nowadays originated with libertarians, and equates it with lack of government regulation, regardless of anything else. But the traditional definition also includes monopolies and other factors that stifle competition, and from that perspective, it's entirely possible for a market to be more free because of government intervention (e.g. monopoly busting).

Indeed, setting certain rules can unify a market and reduce transaction costs. Calling a city, negotiating for rights to use public property, etc.

Setting caps can also reduce a municipality desire to give a 'monopoly', an absolute monopoly where you can't get comparable service elsewhere, to one provider in exchange for generous royalty rates.