It is not a ban on anything. It is making sure that poor neighborhoods don't get left behind again. Things like this are not things that should be left up to the free market, otherwise you end up with rich neighborhoods having lots of service, and middle and poor neighborhoods having next to nothing.
> Things like this are not things that should be left up to the free market
Municipalities incorrectly assume they have a choice whether to leave things up to the market. In reality, the market operates whether they like it or not, and simply adds the cost of serving unprofitable customers to the "cost" side of the equation when deciding whether to build service in an area. That's why even Google won't build in cities that impose build-out requirements.
Cities think they can wire up impoverished neighborhoods "for free" when in reality all they're really doing is creating a large tax on fiber deployment,[1] and using the proceeds to serve lower-income neighborhoods. But when you tax something, you decrease demand for it (which is why we tax cigarettes). Taxing fiber is incompatible with the idea that you want to encourage fiber deployment.
[1] It's also a tax that's quite regressive. A middle class family with fiber pays the same amount of "tax" to subsidize fiber for low-income areas as a rich family. It'd be better to just increase the city income tax and pay for fiber directly.
> Things like this are not things that should be left up to the free market, otherwise you end up with rich neighborhoods having lots of service, and middle and poor neighborhoods having next to nothing.
To clarify, the alternative isn't really a free market approach either (since Verizon was seeking a de facto exclusive, monopoly status).
There is a free market approach to solving the problem you describe as well, but what Verizon seeking was almost the opposite of that.
Verizon was not seeking either a de jure or a de facto exclusive monopoly. Comcast already serves the whole city. Indeed, they did wire up a number of buildings downtown. Because the city wouldn't give Verizon a television licenses, those buildings invariably offer Comcast alongside FiOS.
