- Utopia's public network lets private providers compete over the same fiber
- The competitive dynamic can lower the price of an identical service
- Bountiful chose ownership before a single fiber operator could dominate the market
The ongoing biff over municipal broadband often begins with the wrong question: should local government be in the business of selling internet service?
Utopia Fiber offers a more interesting answer. The cities build and own the fiber network, but they don't become your ISP. Instead, the infrastructure is opened to multiple private internet providers, which compete to sell services to homes and businesses using the same publicly owned fiber.
Think of it as a municipal road with competing delivery companies driving over it. The public sector owns the road; the private sector competes for the traffic.
It’s an elegant set-up because it puts the infrastructure in the hands of the local authority, along with other critical infrastructure, while the operators have to compete to make money over it. The city gets long-term control without creating a government-owned retail broadband monopoly, while consumers aren't locked into whichever company happens to own the cable running past their house.
This being America, local governments getting involved in telecom services at any level have been greeted by the modern equivalent of mobs of angry villagers with burning torches, leveling accusations of – gasp – Socialism. Which is ironic given that the model being pursed by Utopia and others has the exact opposite market effect.
Roger Timmerman, Utopia's executive director, describes a wholesale connection shared among retail providers. The network gives up some direct service revenue, he says, but gains from multiple companies marketing on the same infrastructure. And the competitive dynamic means some providers sell the same service more cheaply on Utopia than they do elsewhere. “When they're on our network, they know they have to be competitive.”
If that isn’t a free market economy, I don’t know what is.
The ownership arrangements vary. Utopia is a Utah governmental consortium whose original city networks belong collectively to its member cities. It also operates or supports open-access networks with other ownership structures, including a nonprofit project in Montana and a city system in Idaho Falls. The common element is the separation of the fiber from the retail services carried over it.
“This isn't government competing with private sector,” Timmerman says. “This is government enabling private sector competition.” In conservative Utah municipalities, that distinction has proved useful. A local ISP can reach customers over a shared network without having to build a parallel street-by-street fiber system, and residents can choose among providers. Public ownership is not an automatic cure for bad economics, either: Timmerman says Utopia lost money in its early years, and some newer city partners see the network as a public service worth supporting even if it does not break even.
The model also travels beyond Utopia's original member cities. Timmerman describes operational partnerships with Idaho Falls Fiber and Montana's Yellowstone Fiber, whose nonprofit ownership differs from Utah's city consortium. Shared support, ordering and network operations can give smaller projects some of the capabilities of a larger system while local owners retain their own decisions. He says providers already using Utopia's interfaces can find it easier to participate in these partner networks. That is an expansion route for open access, though each community still has to settle the questions of financing, local construction and accountability for service when something goes wrong.
Bountiful, Utah, is an interesting case study. Timmerman says the city faced the possibility of a private fiber entrant and decided it would rather own the infrastructure and invite providers onto it. “We better do this ourselves before someone else does and creates a monopoly,” is how he describes it. A citizen-led campaign supported the move in favour of the city network, while dark-money spending opposed it. But the people prevailed, so the tale has a happy ending.
I have written about fiber as infrastructure for the physical AI economy. Utopia adds a question of governance: if fiber becomes the common physical platform for much more than household broadband, who gets to set the terms of access? Its answer is a public asset with competing private services. The proof will be whether that arrangement keeps delivering choice and value as demand on the network grows.
Read more on Fierce Network:
Opinion: Lumen is behaving nothing like a carrier
Opinion: Fiber’s next act: From broadband to the infrastructure of the physical AI economy
Opinion: Technology isn't the hard part anymore — Scaling is
Opinion: Telecom’s great AI dilemma: Everybody wants the future, nobody knows how to monetize it
Opinion: Sovereignty tunnels are here
T-Mobile’s Ankur Kapoor: AI is moving from the cloud into the core network
Q&A: AI at the crossroads — Blue Stream Fiber on replacing the task, not the job
Stephen M. Saunders MBE is a communications analyst and USPTO-registered inventor examining how digital infrastructure — 5G, cloud and AI — is reshaping industry, power and society, as well as underpinning the emerging, ubiquitous global digital economy. As anchor of FNTV and a longtime industry insider, he focuses less on growth narratives and more on execution, risk and how hyperscale technology is distorting markets, governance and society at scale.
Opinion pieces from industry experts, analysts or our editorial staff do not represent the opinions of Fierce Network.
Read about Utopia Fiber on Fierce Network
Utopia Fiber finishes Bountiful build despite dark money campaign
The Five Nine: Gigapower, Utopia take open access networks to the U.S.
speeds of 1 Gig are ‘standard’ now, according to ISP execs
Ookla: Municipal broadband upload speeds beat cable but still trail fiber ISPs