said by fgoldstein :

Stringing your own wire (fiber) is rarely a viable option. BrandX itself actually has strung fiber around its own neighborhood. But in most cities, the poles are crowded, making it extremely costly to add additional lines.

said by pnh102 :

Again, this is simply an issue of private property. Brand X wants to force other companies to grant Brand X access to their private property. The government has no place doing this.

said by VirtualLarry :

which means that the owner has the right to demand concessions,

said by pnh102 :

Well, I have not said that I favored Brand X's position, personally, in their case. I am very much on record as opposing the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers' petitions to be treated like cable companies, rather than as common carriers. Brand X argues that cable companies do what common carriers do and should be treated the same way. The ILECs agree, but in the opposite sense -- they want both to be NOT common carriers.

The public interest demands common carriage. It is highly unrealistic to grant "propertarian" rights to common carriers to control what they do with their property. If the ILECs were not regulated, there would be no Internet: It was regulation that forced Ma Bell to allow "foreign attachments", like modems. (Or would you rather be renting a Model 103 300-bps modem for $25/month?) It was regulation that forced Ma Bell to allow "sharing and resale" of its leased lines: Before that rule, they flat-out refused to run leased data circuits between two different corporations, because "private lines" could only be for the exclusive use of one company. Anything else had to go dial-up, paying toll.

Cable companies do pay a franchise fee -- yes, they're allowed to pass it along, which is rational since it's a cost of doing business -- which I suppose ostensibly covers the value of their rights of way. Telcos don't pay that, but do have an obligation of common carriage. Cable companies were not created to carry the Internet -- it's possible that if they were regulated as common carriers, they'd be much less interested in doing it. That's the legal situation in the USA. The Bells claim they need that incentive too, but that's absurd; they're the sole provider of wholesale access to ISPs, and have incredibly valuable plant. Canada, I will note, has different laws, and does impose something like common carriage (wholesale access at regulated rates for any ISP who wants in) on cable modems. If there were no common carriers, even this message board couldn't exist -- who would allow it on *their* wires?