I don't think this nullifies any of what the article discusses. Comcast only has as much of a monopoly as the city gives them, and this franchise agreement expl

I don't think this nullifies any of what the article discusses. Comcast only has as much of a monopoly as the city gives them, and this franchise agreement explicitly reserves the right to grant similar franchise agreements: "This Franchise is not exclusive. The Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the City reserves the right to grant one (1) or more additional franchises or other similar lawful authorization to provide Cable Services within the City; provided, however, that no such franchise or similar lawful authorization shall contain material terms or conditions which are substantially more favorable or less burdensome to the competitive entity than the material terms and conditions herein." Sounds like the mayor has decided to grant some other franchises. And, the article also explains in several places that Comcast is being given similar opportunities to work with the city on fiber rollout...satisfying the clause that nobody else gets preferential treatment. And, this agreement is pretty focused on cable television service; it's an accident of history (and probably a mistake of regulation) that cable television companies are in the internet business, at all. It sounds, to me, like the mayor is negotiating with any interested party, and is insisting that conduit construction include provisions for fiber. It's all within his purview, and the franchise agreement with Comcast doesn't nullify that. That said, I think the cable monopolies (and telco monopolies) in the US have been disastrous for innovation and consumers (we have among the worst Internet service at the highest prices in the developed world). But, I am suggesting that the mayor of Seattle may be coming down closer to the right side of the issue than most.