I'm very sorry if you feel I've attempted to mislead you, but the end result is the same: in most US cities, there is only one television provider, and it's al

I'm very sorry if you feel I've attempted to mislead you, but the end result is the same: in most US cities, there is only one television provider, and it's always one that has negotiated a favorable contract with the local government. I know you don't think this is possible, that it's been outlawed, and that you're prepared to spend your life asserting that there is no way for a government to cause an exclusive franchise to exist, but there is, and they do. In my city, for example, the government just outright sold land to Time-Warner. Time-Warner doesn't pay for access to the right-of-way because they don't have to any more. In return, my city (and the county it's in) got fiber rolled out city wide. I'm also unsure why you think that a simple business decision by Google is some sort of Moral Designator. It is the job of a city government to protect the less fortunate. They're not going to achieve that by letting corporations serve rich neighborhoods and ignore poor ones. I'm not sure how a city can "make the terms of getting a franchise unattractive for competitors" by holding them to the same terms as the existing franchisees. I'm not really interested in having some kind of politically-charged debate with you about it, and now that you're throwing around phrases like 'class warfare,' I've realized you don't have any other actual motivation here. Sorry to have wasted your time on the matter.