There needs to be a middle ground. If I as an individual or company use my own money to install wiring into a building with the idea of making money off of that investment later, the government (federal or local) should not have the right to force me to turn over that investment to someone else so that they can make money off of my hard work.
At the same time, if I am renting a unit or building to someone as property owner I shouldn't be allowed to dictate what provider they use, and facilitate access to all providers.
Both sides are using straw man arguments, both sides are exaggerating their opponent's positions, and both sides misrepresent their own written positions with their verbal explanations. In other words SNAFU
There are problems with the San Francisco law. For example, the law as written means that a property owner who installed wire for future installation of alarms or cameras would have to allow an ISP to use those lines to provide internet access instead of requiring the ISP to install their own cable, thus blocking the owner of the property from using their property and investment as intended.
The city's claim that their ordinance "does not require sharing of 'in-use' wiring" is a bit disingenuous, because their ordinance DOES require the sharing of wiring -- it just doesn't differentiate between in-use and idle facilities.
The San Francisco law *DOES NOT* however force a one cable company to give over their cables to a competitor -- it only applied to lines OWNED by the property owner.
Since I have PO'd both sides with a relatively balanced analysis, let the downvotes begin....