We've frequently discussed how AT&T and Verizon have lobbied hard to pass laws that strip video authority from towns and cities, under the premise of speeding up telcoTV deployment and promoting competition. Unfortunately, many of these bills are little more than rubber-stamped wish lists for the carriers that erode eminent domain rights, strip all authority from local government, eliminate consumer protections and gut public access funding. After selling much of New England because they didn't think it was profitable, Verizon is now pushing franchise "reform" in Massachusetts, using broadband investment funds and the recession as a political threat:The problem has been that these bills frequently do virtually nothing for the consumer and are primarily aimed at legalizing broadband deployment cherry picking. While local towns and cities sometimes make carriers jump through hoops (something played up to great effect by AT&T/Verizon fan Kevin Martin during his tenure), tough local regulators are the reason cable TV and broadband is available to huge swaths of rural America. Cable operators got no such special privileges when they were deploying coaxial to these markets.

While these bills are promoted as a magic elixir that will bring competition and lower TV prices to a region, when people go back to investigate whether these bills actually helped anybody (which is amusingly rare), data indicates that TV prices increased anyway and consumers got the short end of the stick. State lawmakers are usually no match for Verizon and AT&T lobbying muscle. Legislators frequently don't understand what the bills even do -- but are easily lured by promises of inexpensive TV service that never comes.