Joshua Montgomery is the owner and operator of Wicked Broadband , a Lawrence, Kansas-based ISP. He protested a recent legislative proposal in Kansas that was supported by the cable lobby and which would have made it nearly impossible for cities and towns in that state to offer broadband service to residents.

Lawrence, KS—My wife and I run a small ISP here in Lawrence. Customers who live near our fiber are already getting gigabit service and, in partnership with our city government, we are looking at installing a common carriage gigabit system in residential neighborhoods throughout Lawrence.

Most of the rest of the country isn’t that lucky. A vast majority of US households have no ultra-high-speed providers (defined as ISPs that can deliver 1 gigabit per second), and even traditional broadband choices (which usually end up being less than 10 megabits per second) are limited to the incumbent phone or cable provider.

But Google is changing that in Kansas City, KS; Austin, TX; and Provo, UT. By building fiber networks in these communities, Google is forcing incumbent carriers to innovate. They are giving customers choices.

Things aren’t perfect, however. What we're finding is that even mighty Google’s capabilities are limited. Each of these projects is taking years to complete, and expansion is a slow and tortured process. Even if Google wanted to sink all of its cash into fiber systems, the sheer scale of the project would make it impossible for the company to build networks in a timely fashion. It would take too long to spin up the internal infrastructure; work out agreements with all of the myriad players; and design, fund, and construct a nationwide system.

It is clear to me that if it is Google’s goal to improve Internet service in the United States, the company needs to take a different approach. Call it “Google Speed” for building out Fiber systems. Google needs to franchise its technology and marketing to municipalities.

By franchising its operation to municipalities, Google can use its three most important assets to grow its network: branding, engineering, and marketing. Municipalities can then use their strongest abilities—managing infrastructure construction and providing long-term finance—to make the projects successful.

Municipalities all over the country (135 at last count) are looking at building high-speed fiber systems for themselves. Chatanooga, TN; Layfayette, LA; and Bristol, VA already have systems in place, and cities like Longmont, CO are in the process of constructing them.

Municipalities are excellent at constructing infrastructure. They do it all the time in the form of roads, parks, libraries, and even highly complex water systems.

Unfortunately, not all municipalities are forward-thinking when it comes to Internet infrastructure. Most municipalities are risk-adverse, ultra-conservative institutions. They are also extremely wary of taking on powerful cable and telephone monopolies. In many of the projects listed above, the municipality was sued repeatedly to keep it out of the telecommunications market.

Google can quell municipal fears by providing turnkey engineering standards and using its legal muscle to keep incumbent companies in line. Cities would be able to use the engineering standards in their Request For Proposal (RFP) process to ensure that the resulting network is worthy of Google’s brand. Once built, Google would use its brand cachet and marketing muscle to ensure that the systems reached the level of subscription necessary to make them financially successful.

In Provo this already happened, though accidentally. Provo built the fiber network, then gave it to Google as a gift when the city proved incompetent at marketing and managing the system. Google likely made some improvements, but ultimately it is making use of the existing fiber to provide its ultra-high-speed service.

I wouldn’t propose that municipalities build these networks at taxpayer expense just to give them away, but they could certainly provide “common carriage” access to Google.

Here in Lawrence we are building a common carriage system that includes four fibers to each home. Under a franchise model, Google would provide engineering expertise and online marketing in exchange for the use of one fiber. The rest of the fibers would be available for use by other carriers on an equal basis, at a low fixed cost.

The end result would be municipally owned and financed networks where one service is managed and marketed by Google. The additional capacity installed during construction would be made available to all comers on an equal basis, ensuring Google’s good behavior in the future.

Everyone wins in this scenario. Google gets explosive growth by leveraging its core capabilities. Municipalities get access to the technology and marketing they need to build successful networks. Citizens get choices. Finally, incumbent carriers get access to cutting edge fiber infrastructure without having to pay for it themselves. If the incumbent carriers are smart enough to figure this out they will also win by externalizing their capital costs. If they realize it quickly enough, they will even preserve most of their market share.

I’ve been telling our city commission that the best way to bring Google to Lawrence is to build the network ourselves, then invite Google to use one fiber. Not only do I think it might work here, I think it might work everywhere.