Cherry-picking utilities

Today's Nashville City Paper contains an op/ed Cable argument doesn't make business sense about a current legislative proposal regarding TV services:

The latest argument against granting telephone giant AT&T a statewide franchise to provide video services is another brick in the wall, so to speak, from the pro-government regulation crowd.

Tennessee Municipal League lobbyists argued in our Monday edition AT&T should have to disclose a list of cities where they plan to provide these services as proof the company will not cherry pick affluent areas for service.

I think the op/ed is incorrectly titled; of course cable's (BigCable?) argument makes business sense . . . to BigCable. And sense this economic battle will be decided in halls of state politics, BigCable (hey, lumping groups of businesses together with the prefix "Big" for argumentative effect is kind of fun) is reasonably expected to argue whatever works, right?

That being said, there may be a business argument that does make sense for consumers. We protect certain industries ("utilities") from competition for a couple of reasons, it seems. One is that the commodity provided by the industry is simply too important to leave to the whims of the free market. Frankly, that doesn't seem to apply to television/video services.

Another reason for Utilities is that it is unlikely that companies will expend the capital to enter the business of providing said commodity unless they know that they have some protection from the whims of the free market. That doesn't seem to apply here either, as AT&T will be using existing "networks" to provide the television/video services. In this sense, it doesn't seem that television services are a "natural monopoly" or that consumers still benefit from treating TV/video services as a Public Utility.

I'm interested to hear what others think, so comment on . . .