Broadweave has repeatedly insisted that the only way for iProvo to work is if it becomes a closed network with one provider operating both the retail and wholesale operations. Perhaps, then, they can explain why it is that they agreed to "provide access to alternate service providers for a fee" as part of their utility easement in the Sienna Hills subdivision near Washington City? (See SITLA Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2005, pg. 7) If such an arrangement were not economically viable, wouldn't Broadweave have walked away? It's a tacit admission that open networks can work financially.
It's also telling that as a part of their easement in Washington County, Broadweave also wanted to be awarded automatic contracts to develop telecommunications systems throughout the School & Institutional Trust Lands Administration's future projects. The board was rightfully spooked by this implication and voted against granting such a restriction. (See SITLA Meeting Minutes of October 20, 2005, pg. 25)