Call: 1-877-697-2926

Metronet Accuses Colorado Springs of Favoritism Toward City-Owned Fiber Network

Metronet, a major player in the fiber-optic broadband sector, has spent the last two decades expanding high-speed internet access across underserved areas in the Midwest and South. Known for delivering 100% fiber-optic connectivity, the company operates in more than 250 communities across 16 states. Now, it’s turning public attention toward Colorado Springs, claiming the city is tilting the playing field in favor of its own municipal broadband project.

The accusation centers on alleged preferential treatment given to Colorado Springs Utilities' taxpayer-funded fiber network. According to Metronet, the city has been slow to grant access to critical infrastructure while fast-tracking its own internal deployments — a move the private provider views as creating an unfair regulatory environment.

Municipal broadband refers to internet networks built and operated by local governments to serve residents directly, often citing goals like affordability, digital equity, and service expansion. The model has gained traction in recent years as a counter to limited competition among private ISPs. However, when cities act as both regulator and competitor, questions about fairness and market distortion quickly surface — and Metronet’s complaint makes that tension unmistakably clear.

Shifting Currents: Navigating Today’s Telecommunications Terrain

Changes Shaping the Industry

The telecommunications industry functions as the backbone of the modern digital economy, powered by constant advancement and regulatory evolution. Once dominated by a handful of legacy operators focused on telephone and cable TV services, the sector now drives global internet connectivity, smart technologies, and cloud-based applications. In the U.S. alone, the telecom market reached over $1.7 trillion in cumulative investment in broadband networks as of 2023, according to USTelecom.

Traditional telecom providers like AT&T and Comcast now compete with emerging fiber-focused ISPs, satellite broadband ventures, and municipally-backed networks. The entry of new players and the rise of gigabit-speed demands challenge the decades-long norms that once shaped access, pricing, and service standards.

Market Competition: A Catalyst for Innovation and Access

Competition in telecommunications doesn't merely set pricing—it shapes the entire consumer experience. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has repeatedly emphasized that increased provider competition correlates with faster broadband deployment, reduced costs, and improved customer satisfaction.

Data from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) demonstrates that in markets where three or more ISPs offer gigabit-speed internet, average monthly broadband prices drop by as much as 40%. Beyond price adjustments, competition pressures providers to eliminate data caps, expand rural coverage, and deploy technologies like symmetrical upload/download speeds, unaffected by network congestion.

Fiber Optics: The Engine of High-Speed Connectivity

Unlike older copper or coaxial cable infrastructure, fiber-optic networks transmit data through strands of glass at nearly the speed of light. This enables stable, high-capacity internet even during peak usage. As of end-2023, more than 77.9 million U.S. households had access to fiber—an increase of nearly 20 million since 2019, based on data from the Fiber Broadband Association.

Fiber’s low latency, minimal maintenance requirements, and 10 Gbps+ capability make it the preferred infrastructure for smart city systems, 5G backhaul, AI data centers, and next-gen apps. Municipal governments, recognizing these advantages, have increasingly invested in local fiber grids to support long-term economic growth and digital inclusion.

Who controls that fiber—and how it’s accessed—has become a central question in the debate now unfolding in this Colorado city.

Municipal Broadband: Alternatives or Advantage?

Defining Municipal Broadband

Municipal broadband refers to high-speed internet networks owned and operated by local governments. Unlike traditional ISPs, which are private, for-profit entities, municipal broadband systems are publicly funded and designed to provide infrastructure as a public utility—much like water or electricity. These networks can take several forms: some cities opt to build wholesale networks available to private ISPs, while others offer retail broadband directly to residents and businesses.

Delivery models vary. In some municipalities, the local utility builds and manages the network, leasing access to commercial providers. In others, the city functions as the sole provider, handling customer service, technical maintenance, and billing in-house.

Public and Private Sector Roles

The introduction of publicly owned broadband shifts responsibility for digital infrastructure from shareholders to taxpayers. While traditional ISPs prioritize profitability and market coverage—often skipping lower-density or lower-income areas—municipal providers tend to focus on equitable access and long-term service quality. The public sector’s involvement raises debates about the scope of government in a market historically dominated by private companies.

Investments are structured differently too. Private ISPs typically base infrastructure expansion on expected return on investment, while cities investing in their own networks are motivated by public interest goals: lowering local prices, increasing competition, and ensuring universal service availability.

Success Stories and Ongoing Conflicts

Several municipalities have demonstrated clear economic benefits post-deployment. Chattanooga, Tennessee launched its publicly owned EPB Fiber Optics network in 2010. It delivers symmetrical 1 Gbps service citywide and now offers 25 Gbps, supporting both consumers and local enterprises. According to a 2020 study by the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and the Boyd Center for Business and Economic Research, EPB’s fiber network generated $2.69 billion in economic and social benefits over the first decade.

In Longmont, Colorado, NextLight—operated by the city’s electric utility—offers gigabit internet with no data caps for under $70 per month. Within four years of launch, it surpassed its five-year customer adoption targets and forced incumbent ISPs to adjust prices and speeds across northern Colorado.

However, not every municipal broadband venture proceeds without challenge. In Wilson, North Carolina, Greenlight Community Broadband succeeded in expanding access locally but faced restrictions from statewide legislation backed by private ISPs. The 2011 law, House Bill 129, effectively restricted further expansion by requiring public providers to adhere to rules not imposed on their private competitors, including artificial cost structures and barriers to advertising.

The rise of municipal broadband networks continues to draw both support and criticism—all of it centered on one core issue: who should control access to the 21st-century infrastructure backbone?

Metronet Inc. – Who Are They?

Privately Held, Fiber-Focused

Metronet Inc., a mid-sized Internet service provider headquartered in Evansville, Indiana, specializes in delivering 100% fiber-optic internet, television, and phone services. Founded in 2005, the company has rapidly expanded its infrastructure footprint. As of 2024, Metronet operates in over 250 communities across 16 states, including Texas, Iowa, Michigan, and Florida.

Fiber Infrastructure as a Business Model

Metronet invests heavily in its proprietary fiber networks. These networks offer symmetrical upload and download speeds — a key differentiator from cable providers that rely on coaxial infrastructure. In 2023 alone, Metronet reported surpassing $500 million in private funding to continue its fiber buildout strategy. This investment model allows Metronet to maintain ownership of their infrastructure rather than leasing lines from incumbent operators.

Rather than following the traditional ISP playbook of slow rollouts in suburban cores, Metronet targets underserved or secondary markets — cities where legacy providers have been slow to modernize. Cities like Tallahassee, FL and Ames, IA have benefited from Metronet’s full-fiber deployments, effectively disrupting markets where copper-based DSL and hybrid coaxial networks once dominated.

Customer Experience and Market Competition

Metronet positions its services as premium alternatives to legacy systems. Residential plans offer speeds up to 2 Gbps, and business packages scale even higher. According to the company’s customer satisfaction data, 89% of users report improved performance compared to their prior provider. While national giants like Comcast and AT&T lead in market size, Metronet differentiates with lower latency, higher upload speeds, and transparent pricing structures without data caps.

Competitive pressure from Metronet has prompted responses from incumbents. For instance, following Metronet’s entrance into Lexington, KY in 2022, Spectrum began offering limited-time symmetrical speed upgrades — a direct counter to Metronet's symmetrical gigabit advantage.

Inside Colorado Springs: Local Broadband, Legal Clashes, and Competitive Grievances

The Broadband Landscape in Colorado Springs

Colorado Springs has turned into a flashpoint in the broader debate about municipal involvement in broadband infrastructure. Unlike many cities still relying on legacy copper networks or limited cable offerings, Colorado Springs has actively invested in fiber-optic infrastructure. The goal: achieve gigabit-level connectivity at scale, facilitate digital inclusion, and stimulate local economic development.

BroadbandNow ranks Colorado as the 17th most-connected state in the nation as of early 2024, with over 90% of residents having access to wired broadband. However, availability varies widely by city and region. In this environment, Colorado Springs stands out for adopting a hybrid model that blends public support with private execution.

City Government Initiatives in Broadband

The City of Colorado Springs launched its broadband expansion efforts under the umbrella of Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU), a municipally owned utility. CSU began installing conduit systems for fiber deployment back in 2020, allowing network providers to lease access. This move followed a 2017 ballot measure in which voters overwhelmingly approved the city’s right to provide broadband services, sidestepping restrictions imposed by Colorado’s Senate Bill 152.

By 2022, the city had formalized a partnership with Ting Internet—an independent ISP—to facilitate last-mile delivery using the city-owned infrastructure. The deal allowed Ting to become the anchor tenant on the municipally built dark fiber network. The arrangement was structured as an open-access network, nominally allowing other ISPs to lease fiber and compete on services. However, this model now sits at the heart of a growing controversy.

Legal Disputes and Market Tensions

Metronet Inc., a privately held fiber-optic provider active in more than 250 U.S. communities, entered the Colorado Springs market with its own infrastructure plans. Shortly after its entry, in late 2023, Metronet filed a legal complaint alleging that the city had engaged in favoritism toward Ting Internet. Specifically, the company accused the city of granting preferential permitting, exclusive infrastructure access, and non-transparent revenue-sharing terms.

In documents filed with the El Paso County District Court, Metronet pointed to delayed right-of-way approvals and permitting bottlenecks that allegedly impacted its ability to roll out service. By contrast, it claimed that Ting faced dramatically fewer hurdles. These accusations have ignited heated debate among policymakers, residents, and competing providers about the role of city government in shaping competitive dynamics.

The legal fight has also drawn the attention of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and state lawmakers, some of whom are considering updates to broadband legislation aimed at clarifying the boundaries between public support and market interference.

The clash in Colorado Springs illustrates how the accelerating push toward municipal broadband can generate friction—especially when public-private partnerships morph into allegations of favoritism and institutional bias.

The Allegations of Fiber Favoritism: What’s the Fuss About?

Metronet’s Accusation: Preferential Treatment Behind Closed Doors

Metronet alleges that the city of Colorado Springs has given unfair preferential treatment to its own municipally funded broadband network, Colorado Springs Utilities’ (CSU) fiber division, at the expense of private Internet Service Providers (ISPs). According to the complaint filed in federal court in late 2023, the city granted CSU exclusive and expedited access to key infrastructure assets—including utility poles and underground conduits—creating an uneven playing field for private competitors like Metronet.

In particular, Metronet claims it faced delays of several months in obtaining necessary permits and access agreements that CSU received in a fraction of the time. Public records obtained by Metronet show that CSU secured access to utility rights-of-way without undergoing the same fees, engineering reviews, or lengthy inspections required of the private sector. This disparity, they argue, constitutes a form of favoritism that violates federal and state laws promoting fair broadband competition.

How Municipal Actions Impact Market Dynamics

The core of the dispute focuses on the city’s dual role—as both a regulatory agency and the owner of a competing broadband provider. This inherent conflict challenges the assumption of neutrality in infrastructure access. When a city owns a fiber network and also controls access protocols, scheduling, and fees, it holds power to subtly or overtly favor one provider over others. In this case, Metronet presents documentation asserting that CSU received pole attachment approvals in less than 30 days, while Metronet was made to wait over 120 days on average.

That gap has operational consequences. Longer wait times delay market entry, increase capital expenditures, and reduce a provider’s chance to establish sufficient customer base before the municipal option dominates the segment. Such delays influence deployment timelines and, by extension, the speed at which residents receive new service options.

What Does This Mean for Residents and Businesses?

The implications extend beyond corporate squabbles. With CSU’s fiber network being rolled out more rapidly thanks to favorable internal processes, residents might get municipal service faster—but at the cost of a less competitive marketplace. Fewer provider choices typically lead to higher prices and reduced innovation over time.

Potential customers lose the bargaining power that comes with competition. If Metronet cannot compete on equal access and speed of deployment, it might delay or abandon investments in Colorado Springs altogether. For businesses, that could mean limited gigabit options for commercial properties, reduced service-level agreements, and higher fees for enterprise connectivity.

Would the marketplace look different if CSU competed on the same terms? Would innovation rise if private ISPs could deploy fiber at the same pace? These are the practical questions now facing local stakeholders, policy analysts, and consumers alike.

Open Access: A Bone of Contention

The Meaning of Open Access in Municipal Broadband

Municipal broadband networks that use the open access model allow multiple Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to deliver services over the same physical infrastructure. Unlike traditional broadband systems—where the network operator is often the sole provider—open access separates infrastructure management from service delivery. This separation changes the dynamic of broadband competition on a foundational level.

Open access isn’t a fringe concept. In places like Ammon, Idaho, and UTOPIA Fiber in Utah, municipal networks operate under open access frameworks, attracting private ISPs that lease bandwidth and compete based on price and quality rather than physical reach. The model relies on publicly funded infrastructure paired with private-sector innovation, and it’s gaining traction nationwide.

Competitive Impacts of Open Access Networks

When a municipality enables open access, it forces ISPs to differentiate themselves in ways that don’t depend on exclusive network ownership. This leads to direct competition in terms of customer service, pricing, and performance. Markets with open access infrastructure report lower average broadband prices and higher consumer satisfaction scores.

A 2020 study by the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society highlighted that open access models can lead to cost reductions of up to 50% for consumers by breaking the monopoly-like situation commonly held by incumbent ISPs. Moreover, the same study showed that network utilization increases significantly—by 30% or more—under open access settings, since infrastructure investment is maximized across multiple providers.

Arguments For and Against Open Access Policies

In the case of the Colorado city under scrutiny, this debate over open access lies at the heart of Metronet’s allegations. Is open access a fair mechanism for encouraging broadband competition, or does it tilt the playing field in favor of municipally aligned service providers? The legal and political skirmish reveals deep disagreement over what open access means for the future of connectivity in small and mid-sized markets.

The Broadband Lawsuit Unpacked

Legal Action Triggered by Competitive Imbalance

Metronet filed a lawsuit against the city of Loveland, Colorado, asserting that the municipality unlawfully favored its publicly owned broadband utility, Pulse, over private internet service providers. According to court documents submitted to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in 2023, Metronet claims the city violated both federal and state laws by creating conditions that stifled private-sector competition and distorted the telecommunications market.

At the heart of the suit lies the accusation that Loveland leveraged its regulatory authority to grant Pulse special access to public rights-of-way, infrastructure, and construction permits—benefits not extended to private providers. Metronet characterizes this behavior not as neutral governance but as municipal protectionism masked as public service expansion.

The Legal Framework: Preemption and Discrimination

Metronet's legal argument draws from the Telecommunications Act of 1996, particularly Section 253(a), which prohibits state or local regulations that "may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." By allegedly providing preferential treatment to Pulse, Loveland stands accused of suppressing marketplace competition—a scenario the Act directly addresses.

The lawsuit also references the Colorado Fair Competition in Government Act, which restricts public entities from using their authority to create significant competitive advantages in commercial markets. Metronet argues that by embedding Pulse within the city administration, Loveland blurred the lines between regulator and competitor, violating not only federal competition standards but also Colorado's intent to keep public utilities from monopolistic behavior in areas where private services are available.

Potential Outcomes and Market Reshuffling

If the court rules in favor of Metronet, the decision could upend how municipalities operate broadband services across Colorado and potentially the U.S. It could establish clearer boundaries between public infrastructure oversight and private-sector competition rights. The lawsuit doesn’t seek to dismantle municipal broadband, but rather demands parity—equal access, equal regulation, and transparent policy enforcement.

Such a legal precedent would compel municipalities to reevaluate open access provisions, infrastructure-sharing fairness, and the internal governance of publicly owned telecommunications entities. The operational models of existing municipal ISPs could shift, and new deployment strategies may emerge under stricter regulatory oversight.

The Policy Ripple Effect: What the Metronet Dispute Signals for U.S. Broadband Governance

Local Decisions, National Consequences

City-led broadband initiatives like the one challenged in Colorado don’t operate in a vacuum—they echo across a policy landscape where federal, state, and municipal authorities intersect. The Metronet case adds weight to a growing body of legal and political friction surrounding municipal broadband projects. As local governments explore public internet infrastructure, these initiatives increasingly shape the broader debate over how the United States builds and governs its digital future.

Municipal Authority in Broadband Development

Cities hold substantial influence over broadband buildouts through control of public rights-of-way, funding decisions, and strategic partnerships. In the Colorado case, this influence has come under scrutiny. Courts and regulators must now consider to what extent municipalities should leverage that authority to prioritize public networks—or if doing so creates unfair conditions for private actors.

Dozens of cities across the U.S. have launched municipal broadband networks, citing high costs, poor service, or lackluster investment from commercial providers. Research from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance shows that more than 600 communities operate municipal broadband services as of 2023, often with measurable gains in speed and affordability. But these efforts now face political pushback and, increasingly, legal challenges like Metronet’s.

Keeping the Market Fair—Or Reshaping It Entirely?

High-speed internet was officially reclassified as essential infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing comparisons to public utilities like water or electricity. This has shifted public expectation and policy language, but not everyone agrees on implementation. Private ISPs argue municipal preference distorts competition. On the other hand, many public officials view broadband as a service that should not be governed solely by market forces.

Policymakers at all levels now face a dual challenge. They must deliver equitable internet access—especially in rural, low-income, and marginalized areas—while maintaining a regulatory environment that invites innovation and private investment. States like Colorado have already repealed barriers to municipal broadband; others continue to uphold them. The national policy emerges as patchwork.

Shaping the New Digital Compact

The conflict between Metronet and the Colorado city may not determine the future of municipal broadband alone, but it will feed directly into how that future is governed. Regulations will need to reconcile local experimentation with market openness. Decisions in this and similar cases will force policy architects to define the boundaries between public interest and corporate fairness—two principles that don’t always align.

The Digital Divide and Economic Ramifications

High-Speed Internet: A Catalyst Unequally Distributed

Broadband infrastructure holds the power to shape economic futures, yet its distribution continues to reveal stark disparities. In Colorado, like much of the United States, high-speed internet access varies dramatically between densely populated urban centers and smaller rural or mountain communities. According to the Federal Communications Commission's 2023 Broadband Deployment Report, 97% of Americans in urban areas have access to fixed terrestrial broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, while in rural areas, that figure drops to just 65%.

This digital divide acts as more than a technological inconvenience. It impedes access to education, telehealth, remote work, e-commerce, and public services. In towns bypassed by high-capacity networks, students download homework at coffee shops, while small businesses lose out on e-market opportunities due to slow upload speeds.

Economic Development Hinges on Connectivity

Regions with robust broadband attract investment. Fast and reliable internet serves as infrastructure much like roads and electricity. The USDA has quantified this in rural economies: its 2019 study found that fully deploying e-Connectivity across rural America would yield $65 billion annually through increased agricultural efficiency, expanded rural entrepreneurship, and improved delivery of services like healthcare and education.

Policy Disputes With Consequences

Legal pushback, such as Metronet’s accusation of municipal favoritism, introduces more than courtroom drama — it introduces uncertainty. When providers contest public infrastructure decisions, project timelines extend, partnerships stall, and capital investment waits on the sidelines. In short, fiber gets delayed.

Delay, in the broadband context, means more than inconvenience. It prolongs inequity. Rural students remain dependent on mobile hotspots. Businesses in second-ring suburbs defer digital expansion. Municipalities lose strategic advantage in attracting tech-forward jobs. Each month lost to litigation is a month disconnected from the economic flow shaping tomorrow's growth centers.

What does this mean long-term? In contested municipalities, protracted legal environments can disincentivize even neutral ISPs from entering. Providers seek predictable regulatory environments. Lawsuits muddy that water. As fiber deployment lags, so do the urban-rural economic convergences it could have enabled.

What Does the Metronet Lawsuit Mean for You, the Customer?

As Metronet accuses Colorado city officials of fiber favoritism over the City of Colorado Springs' municipal broadband operations, local customers find themselves at the center of a wider struggle over who controls high-speed internet access—and under what terms.

For Colorado Springs Residents: Uncertain Internet Futures

This lawsuit disrupts more than just boardroom agendas. Real consequences may unfold for households and businesses across Colorado Springs that depend on affordable, reliable fiber service. If courts find the city gave its own operation unfair advantages, the decision could delay deployment plans, jeopardize funding models, or attract new restrictions on municipal broadband activities. Any of these outcomes could impact service quality or expansion timelines.

For Metronet customers or those exploring alternative options, the situation introduces variables in pricing, access, and long-term infrastructure commitments. A distorted competitive environment often leads to fewer choices and locked-in contracts. With both public and private providers aiming to dominate fiber delivery, the stakes touch every browser session and streaming buffer delay.

Your Options: Stay Informed, Stay Vocal

Want practical influence? Consider supporting open access policies. When municipalities allow multiple ISPs to use fiber infrastructure, it fosters price competition and enhances service performance. Colorado Springs’ approach to broadband—if held to consistent and open standards—could become a model or a cautionary tale for cities nationwide.

The Bigger Picture: Telecommunications in Transition

The struggles between private providers and public fiber networks reflect a deeper shift. In a sector long dominated by legacy cable monopolies, the arrival of municipal and regional fiber has rattled the status quo. Lawsuits like this one test how state laws, local charters, and competitive fairness coexist—or clash—in a reshaped broadband economy.