said by TKJunkMail :

Getting rid of local franchise agreements eliminates 1 more source of graft - the local politicians. And if we can get rid of state franchises and substitute national franchises( a bill is still waiting in Congress), we can get rid of state graft too. Paying off a lot less pols(only national ones then) should result in a faster rollout and lower costs due to less graft and payoffs.

said by bmn :

Yeah, and then all the consumer protections offered by franchise agreements will be lost, there will be NO local access content (school channels, government announcement channels, EOC channels, etc.) and there is no way you can complain when the provider fails to hold up their end of the franchise agreement. The creation of national franchise agreements clearly puts all of the power into the hands of the provider and leaves the consumer with nothing.

As for your assertion that the providers will spend less time greasing palms... You clearly need to get a dose of reality. The politicians in DC are the neediest bunch of beggars in the political pipeline.

said by asfdsadfsdafffff :

The state franchise laws still require the telcos/MSOs to carry Public, Educational, and Governmental channels and the 5% the communites get can help pay for it. This isn't that different from current practice, but should stop extortionate attempts from local special interests to get just one more concession from a MSO.