Open Access Broadband Networks in the United States

Open access broadband networks are an emerging model for delivering high-speed internet in U.S. communities. Under an open access approach, the physical network infrastructure is shared by multiple service providers who compete to offer internet services to end users. This differs from the traditional model where a single company builds the network and is the only provider on it. By separating the roles of network owner and service provider, open access networks aim to foster competition, lower costs, and expand broadband coverage.

Below is a comprehensive overview of open access broadband networks in the United States – how they work, why communities pursue them, the challenges they face, and examples of successful deployments. It also examines how the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program could influence the growth of open access networks, especially in light of state policies and funding rules.

What Are Open Access Broadband Networks?

An open access network (OAN) is a broadband network where the infrastructure (fiber cables, transmission equipment, etc.) is operated as a neutral platform, available to multiple retail internet service providers (ISPs). The network owner (often a city or a specialized entity) does not itself provide internet service to customers – instead, it wholesales access to independent ISPs that in turn offer retail internet, TV, or phone services over the shared network. In essence, the network’s physical layer is open to any qualified provider, and the network owner remains neutral, offering equal terms to all providers. This layered model contrasts with the vertically integrated norm where one company owns the wires and exclusively sells services. By limiting the network owner’s role to infrastructure and leaving services to competing providers, open access networks create a marketplace of ISPs riding over a single network.

Municipal vs. Private Models: Open access networks can be implemented by public or private entities, with some key differences:

• Municipal Open Access Networks: In this model, a city, county, or consortium of local governments builds and owns the broadband infrastructure as a public asset. The municipality (or an affiliated utility or nonprofit) then allows multiple private ISPs to use that infrastructure to serve customers. The municipality usually does not sell retail service itself – in fact, some states require that municipalities only operate open access networks if they enter the broadband business. For example, in Utah, local governments can build broadband networks but are prohibited by law from offering retail services, so projects like UTOPIA Fiber function purely as wholesale open access networks. Municipal open access networks treat broadband infrastructure akin to a public utility (like a road or electric grid) that is open to all providers rather than a single monopoly. The consortium of 20 Utah cities known as UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency) is a prime example – the cities jointly deployed fiber-optic lines and invite any ISP to deliver services over this network.
• Private-Led Open Access Networks: Open access is not limited to governments. In some cases, private companies build a network with the intent to lease capacity to other ISPs. These firms follow a wholesale-only business model – they invest in fiber infrastructure and then generate revenue by charging retail ISPs (or large customers) for its use. An example is SiFi Networks, a private developer that has built citywide fiber networks (such as in Fullerton, California) under agreements with the city, then allows multiple ISPs to sell services to residents. Another startup, Underline, launched an open access fiber network in Colorado Springs, CO, with a similar approach. Private open access providers often work in partnership with cities (through franchise agreements or revenue-sharing deals), but the infrastructure is privately financed and owned. In effect, the private company becomes a neutral host for ISPs. This model can appeal to cities that want open access benefits without having the city finance or operate the network directly. It also shows that open access can be a viable private business model: the network owner focuses on high utilization of its infrastructure by attracting many providers, while avoiding direct competition with those customers (the ISPs).
• Hybrid Public-Private Partnerships: Some projects blend municipal and private roles. For instance, a city might build the fiber backbone and a private ISP leases it as an anchor tenant (with the understanding that the network could later host additional providers). A notable case is Huntsville, Alabama, where the city’s electric utility laid a fiber network and then leased it to Google Fiber as the first tenant. The deal was structured so that Google Fiber paid the city for network use, helping recoup the construction cost, and the network was open access – Huntsville could lease capacity to other providers as well. This public-private model allowed Huntsville to get a modern network without the city becoming an ISP, while giving Google an easier entry. Similarly, Westminster, Maryland built a fiber network and partnered with Ting Internet to operate on it; Ting effectively became the retail provider, but the city retains ownership of the infrastructure and can welcome additional ISPs. These partnerships demonstrate the flexibility of the open access concept: the key is the separation of infrastructure and service, not who owns the fiber.

How and Why Open Access Works

Open access networks are driven by economic and technological rationales:

• Natural Monopoly Economics: Broadband infrastructure has high fixed costs that make duplication inefficient. Open access centralizes investment with one entity building a network used by all providers, similar to how roads serve all trucking companies. This lowers barriers to entry for new ISPs, who can lease capacity rather than build their own networks. The result is more competition at the service layer without multiple physical networks, leading to lower prices for consumers. The Wired Road network in Virginia demonstrated this by reducing business internet costs by 50-70% through provider competition.
• Technological Capacity Sharing: Fiber networks have enormous bandwidth that can be shared among multiple ISPs simultaneously. This sharing can occur at different network layers – either passive infrastructure only (Layer 1) or including active electronics (Layer 2). Modern fiber technology supports multi-tenant usage through methods like VLAN tagging, allowing one physical network to host many services securely, from residential to business ISPs, mobile backhaul, and smart city applications.
• Innovation Platform: By standardizing access with published wholesale pricing, these networks enable providers to innovate with specialized services. Small or niche ISPs can offer unique options, from low-cost basic internet to premium gaming-optimized connections. The infrastructure owner maintains and upgrades the network while providers focus on customer service and applications. Many open access systems already offer 1-10 Gbps service, exceeding what legacy networks typically provide.
• Economic Development and Equity: Communities pursue open access to achieve broader economic goals, attract businesses, enable remote work, and improve educational and telehealth access. This approach allows smaller, local ISPs to participate, keeping more revenue local while enabling specialized services for specific communities. It represents a “third way” between government-run and private monopolies, combining public infrastructure with private-sector competition.

Same Wires = Same Service? Not Exactly.

1. Shared infrastructure ≠ shared business model

Even though all ISPs on an open access network are using the same physical fiber, they still control their own pricing, service tiers, customer support, and business strategy. Think of it like food delivery apps all operating on the same iPhone — you’re using the same phone, but Uber Eats and DoorDash still compete on price, features, and service quality.

For broadband, this can mean:

• One ISP might offer a $35 plan for 100 Mbps, aimed at budget-conscious users.
• Another might offer $70 gigabit service with elite gaming ping and zero throttling.
• A third might focus on white-glove customer service, real humans answering phones, local ownership, or special deals for students/seniors.

So even if they’re on the same network, how they sell and support the service can be totally different.

2. Competition still matters — and works

In traditional markets, the ISP owns the wires and the service, which means there’s little incentive to innovate or keep prices low. But when multiple ISPs are competing over the same pipe, they have to differentiate somehow — whether by:

• Lower prices
• Better support
• Faster response times
• Specialty offerings (VPNs included, mod-friendly routers, better latency for gaming, etc.)

And in real-world open access networks like UTOPIA in Utah or Ammon, Idaho, that competition has driven prices down and service up. For example, UTOPIA residents can get 1 Gbps for ~$75 and even 10 Gbps for ~$150 — cheaper and faster than Comcast or AT&T in most markets.

3. Innovation at the service layer

With the infrastructure piece taken care of, ISPs can focus all their energy on the user experience. That’s where smaller or niche providers often shine:

• Some might specialize in privacy-first services (no tracking, encrypted everything).
• Others might offer a la carte add-ons — like static IPs, smart home bundles, or local tech support plans.
• And you can have nonprofits or co-ops on the same network as for-profits, which is basically unheard of in closed ISP markets.

4. You’re not locked in

On many open access networks, switching providers is fast and frictionless — sometimes even instant (like in Ammon). That reduces switching costs and puts constant pressure on providers to keep customers happy, or risk losing them.

Compare that to traditional ISPs where canceling means hours on hold and begging a retention rep not to throttle your soul.

So while it might seem like “same wires = same service,” the truth is that open access uncouples the infrastructure from the service, and that opens the door to real, functional competition — not just between telcos, but between different types of ISPs with different priorities.

It’s not perfect, but it’s one of the only broadband models where consumers actually get to vote with their wallet without being stuck in a monopoly.

Key Challenges for Open Access Networks

While open access broadband networks offer an appealing model, they face significant challenges:

• Political and Legal Barriers: Municipal broadband infrastructure faces opposition from incumbent providers who fear competition. Approximately 17 U.S. states have laws restricting or banning municipal broadband ventures. For example, North Carolina effectively prevents new municipal broadband utilities, while Texas largely bars municipalities from offering retail internet service. Even where not banned, incumbents may campaign against city networks as risky uses of taxpayer money. Open access networks must emphasize that they enable private providers rather than directly competing with them.
• Financing and Business Model Viability: Fiber networks require massive upfront investment—often tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. The business model depends on attracting sufficient paying users through ISPs to cover debt service and operating costs. UTOPIA Fiber demonstrates this challenge: launched in 2004, it initially fell short of subscriber targets (16% take rate vs. 35% goal), creating operating deficits requiring city subsidies. The network eventually approached break-even around 2015 after refinancing. Since open access separates infrastructure from service revenue, the network owner receives only a portion of end-user payments, making scale crucial for viability.
• Critical Mass and Provider Attraction: Getting providers to join a network creates a chicken-and-egg problem. ISPs may hesitate to enter small markets without sufficient customers, while customers only sign up if attractive services exist. Major incumbents often decline to participate, forcing networks to cultivate smaller competitive ISPs with less marketing reach. Open networks must market both the concept of choice and coordinate multiple providers, adding operational complexity and costs.
• Incumbent Reactions: Established providers don’t passively accept market share loss. The mere threat of a municipal network often prompts incumbents to improve offerings or engage in price wars. With greater marketing resources and existing customer relationships, incumbents can effectively compete against newer open access options. They may also pursue legal tactics to block bond issuances or push for restrictive legislation, increasing deployment costs and delays.
• Operational and Technological Challenges: Running an open network requires sophisticated management software for multiple ISPs. Ammon, Idaho developed an advanced system allowing customers to switch ISPs through an online portal, but this required significant expertise. Municipalities must ensure service quality, maintain high reliability, and continually expand their user base to remain financially sustainable—all representing new roles for local governments that require specialized skills.

Despite these challenges, many open access networks have found ways to succeed or overcome initial hurdles. Creative financing (e.g. Ammon’s improvement district approach), strong political leadership, and community support have been key ingredients when this model works.

Successful Examples of Open Access Networks in the U.S.

Open access broadband is still a relatively novel approach in America, but a number of projects have demonstrated success. Below we highlight several leading examples, including their structure and performance metrics:

UTOPIA Fiber (Utah): One of the largest U.S. open access networks, UTOPIA is a 20-city consortium that built a shared fiber-optic network. After early financial struggles, it now hosts 15 competing ISPs offering services from basic to multi-gigabit speeds. UTOPIA provides wholesale-only neutral transport to qualified ISPs. It offers 1 Gbps for ~$75/month and 10 Gbps for ~$150/month—significantly undercutting incumbent pricing. The network has expanded rapidly, covers over 100,000 households, operates in the black, and continues growth through revenue bonds repaid by subscriber fees.

Ammon Fiber (Idaho): This small city (population ~17,000) built a utility-based open access network using Local Improvement Districts where neighborhoods opted in, with homeowners paying ~$16-20 monthly for infrastructure. Residents access an online portal to choose ISPs, with service fees ranging from $10-50, bringing total costs to ~$30-40 for gigabit internet. The network supports multiple local ISPs, community services, and allows instant provider switching. Take rates reached 60-70%, with studies showing significant economic benefits including reduced costs and enhanced home values.

The Wired Road (Virginia): Created as a regional partnership between two counties and one city, this network uses fiber backhaul and wireless towers to reach scattered rural populations. Multiple local telecom firms and wireless ISPs compete on the network, reducing business internet costs by 50% or more. The project has improved connectivity in rural Appalachia and attracted employers requiring robust internet access.

Huntsville Utilities/Google Fiber (Alabama): Huntsville’s electric utility invested $57 million in a citywide fiber network, with Google Fiber as the anchor tenant under a 20-year lease. The explicitly open access network later added WOW! Internet as a second provider. This brought competition to the incumbent Comcast while ensuring the city retained infrastructure ownership. The project met financial goals and demonstrated a successful public-private open network model.

Westminster Fiber (Maryland): This small city built a fiber network and partnered with Ting Internet as the exclusive initial ISP. The city owns the “dark” fiber while Ting handles operations, customer service, and marketing for a per-subscriber fee. The network achieved 60%+ take rates in its first neighborhoods, and subscriber fees are helping pay off the city’s bonds as scheduled. This balances open infrastructure with the need for a committed ISP partner.

Additional Examples: Other implementations include Washington State’s Public Utility Districts providing wholesale fiber in rural counties, OpenCape in Massachusetts serving businesses and institutions, NoaNet providing middle-mile fiber in Washington, and various private companies like SiFi Networks and MetroNet offering open access-like arrangements.

The table below summarizes some of these open access deployments and their key metrics:

(Table: Examples of U.S. open access broadband networks, including their models, scale, and performance metrics. Municipal projects often use public financing, while private open access builds leverage private capital with city support.)

Impact of the BEAD Program on Open Access Networks

The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, a $42.45 billion federal initiative created by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, has significant implications for open access networks:

• Opportunities for Funding: BEAD funds can potentially finance the capital costs of new networks in unserved and underserved areas. This helps municipalities, cooperatives, and open access developers propose projects that were previously financially unfeasible. The program explicitly allows a wide range of entities to apply—including municipalities, utilities, and co-ops—ensuring “community networks” have a fair opportunity. If even a fraction of BEAD money funds open access fiber infrastructure, it could launch dozens of such networks nationwide, expanding the model to new states and communities.
• Emphasis on Competition and Affordability: The NTIA, which administers BEAD, has prioritized affordability and competition as key goals. Their guidance encourages open-access arrangements, and BEAD-funded networks must allow other providers to interconnect on reasonable terms. States might award bonus points to projects committing to open access. This focus on affordability aligns with the open access model, which typically drives down consumer prices through competition.
• State Strategy and Preemption Issues: BEAD’s impact will heavily depend on state-level decisions. States friendly to municipal broadband may explicitly support open access projects, while those with restrictions might direct funds primarily to incumbent providers. Although NTIA cannot force states to repeal preemption laws, it required them to identify and mitigate barriers to broadband access. Several states have already reconsidered policies—Arkansas removed a municipal broadband ban in 2021, and Washington increased public utility flexibility—indicating BEAD is prompting new conversations about network ownership.
• Funding Constraints and Requirements: While BEAD’s substantial funding can cover high upfront costs and prioritizes fiber projects, funds must primarily target unserved locations (<25/3 Mbps) and secondarily underserved areas (<100/20 Mbps). Projects require at least 25% matching funds (though waivers exist for disadvantaged areas), potentially disadvantaging smaller municipalities compared to established ISPs with greater capital access.
• Encouraging Open Access Through BEAD: Some advocates suggest using BEAD to build public fiber infrastructure for lease to private ISPs, maximizing long-term competition rather than entrenching incumbent monopolies. This approach is permitted—states could fund cooperatives or authorities to develop open access networks. The challenge lies in states developing expertise to manage such projects and the political will to choose community-driven models over incumbent-led ones.

State Policy Summary Chart

To illustrate the policy landscape that will interact with BEAD, the table below highlights examples of state approaches to municipal/open access broadband:

(Table: Examples of state broadband policies and how they might influence BEAD-funded open access projects. States with restrictive laws may see fewer municipal open access proposals, whereas states with supportive or no restrictions can more fully embrace open models.)

Funding Mechanisms and BEAD Synergy

Open access networks historically used various funding mechanisms – and BEAD can complement or supplant these. Below is a brief overview of funding models used and how BEAD interacts:

(Table: Funding mechanisms for open access networks, with examples. The infusion of BEAD funding can lower the financial barriers described, as grants diminish the need for heavy debt or upfront user fees, provided projects meet program criteria.)

Risks and Ensuring Success

Finally, while BEAD offers a windfall, open access networks still need to execute well to deliver on promises. If not carefully managed, a rush of money could lead to some projects that falter (for example, a county building fiber but failing to attract ISPs to actually serve customers would be a poor outcome). To truly boost open access, states will need to facilitate matchmaking between infrastructure builders and ISPs, provide technical assistance to municipalities or co-ops unfamiliar with large-scale telecom builds, and perhaps underwrite operational costs in early years (so networks can offer low wholesale rates to draw ISPs and keep end-user prices affordable). BEAD includes funding for planning and capacity building – some of that could be used to develop open access business plans. In addition, transparency in pricing and operations will be important; if public money builds a network, the public should know how it’s being used. Open access by nature promotes transparency (standard wholesale pricing, published interconnection terms), which aligns well with the accountability expected of BEAD-funded projects.

In summary, the BEAD program has the potential to significantly accelerate the deployment of open access broadband networks, by solving the hardest problem (money) and encouraging inclusive, competitive approaches. However, the degree to which this potential is realized will depend on state implementation and the choices of local stakeholders. The next few years (2025–2030) will be critical in determining whether open access goes from a niche concept to a mainstream pillar of American broadband infrastructure. If successful, we could see a future where many communities enjoy fiber as a public utility with a marketplace of ISPs, creating a more competitive and consumer-friendly broadband landscape across the country.

Open Access Broadband Networks: A Promising Paradigm Shift

Open access broadband networks represent a promising paradigm shift in internet service delivery, combining public investment strengths (universality, accountability) with private competition benefits (innovation, customer choice). This model has proven successful in several U.S. communities, providing ultra-fast connectivity in Utah, Idaho, and Virginia at better prices and service levels than legacy providers offered, resulting in more choices and better deals for users.

The journey hasn’t been without challenges. Early initiatives faced financial strains, political opposition from incumbents, and state-level legal barriers. Some projects failed, demonstrating that open access requires sound execution, community support, and favorable policies. Nevertheless, successful network deployments and increasing demand for high-quality broadband have validated the concept. Technological trends also favor open access, as fiber and software-defined networking make multi-ISP service delivery more efficient.

With the unprecedented BEAD program investment, states and localities can potentially build 21st-century infrastructure that is open, competitive, and equitable—whether through public agencies creating fiber networks available to any ISP or requiring publicly-funded networks to offer fair wholesale access. This funding reduces the risk of open access models and addresses financing challenges that limited their spread.

For observers, open access broadband evolution touches on key themes: government’s infrastructure role, community-corporate power dynamics, and digital divide bridging. Early data from Utah (price competition) and Virginia (improved business climate) suggests open access delivers real value. These networks are no longer theoretical but practical alternatives gaining adoption. Their expansion depends on navigating political hurdles and effectively using new funding. Success could transform the U.S. broadband industry toward an “infrastructure commons” model, potentially bringing universal, affordable connectivity and improving national digital competitiveness.