A free market is supposed to help ensure that all persons involved, regardless of size or affluence, are able to have a fair and equal opportunity to involve themselves and present an alternative to the current supplier. Now suppose that state localities only permitted those companies that would benefit those with their hands in the cookie jar. How is that free market and fair competition? While some people, who have chosen to remain nameless, say that none of this is for the public good, I say to that, how is it not? How are having more choices for such widely used products such as high-speed internet and cable television not in the public interest? Who do you think uses these products? Sounds like someone is afraid of having their yearly bonus cut into because they would have to offer prices comparable to the competition. Corperations aren't always the bad guys, but the little guy's aren't always good, so don't give me that crap about lack of substance. The point here is, that competition breeds more opportunities for the consumer; which usually translates into lower pricing. Now tell me how that isn't in public interest. Reaching a franchising agreement would not only allow the "big guys" room to branch out, but it would also make it affordable for the little guys to have a fighting chance. Nobody expects the little companies to compete on the same level as comcast or verizon, but while those companies have the millions to pay for the outrageous fees to put out their product smaller companies would have no choice but to just fold in their hand and give up. The only people that wouldn't benefit are the one's who are in control right now.