Tuesday, a mix of Michigan consumers and diverse special interest groups held a rally at the state house in Lansing to protest a pending state law, the "Michigan Video Franchising Bill," which would allow phone companies to bypass cities and counties for TV service approval. The state's lower chamber passed the legislation last week, and the State of California passed similar legislation in October.

But opponents, including Google and consumer groups, say the bill will allow telecoms to sidestep consumer protections, cherry-pick which communities get high-speed broadband and video services, and ignore principles of "Net Neutrality" (which require Internet service providers to offer equal access to all Internet sites).

"This is one battle in a twisting, dynamic game," says Frannie Wellings, government relations manager for FreePress, a nonpartisan media reform group. "AT&T, Verizon--they've been approaching Congress, they've been going state to state, to get legislation that looks like their wish list. We have to take the battle to where they are--every place."

Supporters of the bill say easing for phone companies' entry to offer TV services will increase competition, leading to lower prices and greater access to high-speed Internet service because customers will be able to package all their digital communications--television, phone, and the Internet.

But opponents like Wellings argue that the current Michigan bill would allow telecoms to choose where to build out their lines, potentially serving lucrative population centers and leaving poorer or more rural areas without broadband access. In addition, there are concerns that telecoms will charge Web sites extra for faster deliver of data to pay for the construction of new high-speed lines.

Earlier this year, Congress passed a telecom overhaul bill that would have allowed telephone companies to compete with cable by offering video. That bill lacked a provision that would have required telecoms to adhere to net neutrality principles; a Senate committee then considered adding language that would have required net neutrality, but tied 11-11 on the measure. Now that the Senate is dominated by Democrats, many observers expect that any new legislation will include provisions banning Internet access companies from discriminating against Web publishers by charging certain sites more for faster delivery.

This news story is important. I recommend that everyone read it.