The opinions expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Decima Reports. The lingering dispute between cities and telecommunications carriers over municipal access arrangements (MAAs) needs to be put to bed once and for all. It does nothing but delay the deployment of important broadband infrastructure for businesses small and large, and consumers. Of course, city departments and personnel depend on these broadband pipes for the orderly operation of city business.  Despite a Supreme Court of Canada ruling reaffirming the CRTC as the exclusive overseer of rights-of-way disputes, Canadian municipalities continue to balk at the rules – rules they once called for – and seem unwilling to accept the court’s decision.  During the proceeding leading up to the landmark decision in 2001, municipalities insisted on citywide arrangements. Now they’ve done an about face and insist site-specific deals. This flip-flopping doesn’t do anyone any good.  Some municipalities are also considering other action to try to force carriers to submit to the city’s wishes. The City of Vancouver is contemplating enacting a municipal bylaw that would give it greater control in regulating access to its city streets by all utility companies, including cable companies and telcos.  Industry players tell Network Letter that city bylaws might be enacted but actually carry no teeth at all because they would be unconstitutional. So why would a city try to do this? Could it be that Vancouver feels wronged by the Canadian government and wants retribution, and that the only way it knows how is to make it more difficult for carriers to get access to city streets?  While it appears as though the municipalities are acting like sore losers, they could simply be looking for a better shake from the government, and putting up road-blocks such as new municipal bylaws is one way to go about it.  But there is one thing that cities may be forgetting and that is delaying the deployment of broadband pipes will only serve to hurt a particular city’s ability to attract new companies, bringing with them employees with disposable income.