> If the state is unhappy with certain distributions they can try to change the economics, like giving vouchers. That voucher is still being paid out of our ta

> If the state is unhappy with certain distributions they can try to change the economics, like giving vouchers. That voucher is still being paid out of our tax. Either way, somebody's got to pay. The government saying "You can provide service at any rate, but you have to give the same rate to this whole area" sounds like a much more market-friendly solution to me. Providers can still compete and try to bring the cost down, they just can't do it in a way that leaves poorer part of the city unconnected. If you're against regulations because you don't trust government, consider what happens when the government gets to decide who receives vouchers, how much they are worth, and what services they are good for.