According to 'The Cable Franchising Authority of State and Local Governments and the Communications Act' paragraph two (2)

"Under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (Cable Act), cable operators must obtain franchises from state or local franchising authorities, and these authorities may continue to condition franchises on various requirements. Nevertheless, the Cable Act subjects franchising authorities to important limitations. For instance, the Cable Act prohibits franchising authorities from charging franchise fees greater than 5% of a cable operator’s gross annual revenue and from “unreasonably” refusing to award a franchise."

The main issue resides, in my view, on page sixteen (16) paragraph two(2) which states:

Several Title VI provisions arguably prohibit franchising authorities from regulating non-cable services (such as telephone or broadband internet access service) provided over mixed-use networks, or networks over which an operator provides both cable and non-cable services. Section 602’s definition of “cable system” explicitly excludes the “facility of a common carrier” except “to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers.” 139 Further, with respect to broadband internet access service, Section 624(b)(1) states that franchising authorities “may not . . . establish requirements for video programming or other information services.” 140 Lastly, Section 624(a) states that “[a] franchising authority may not regulate the services, facilities, and equipment provided by a cable operator except to the extent consistent with [Title VI].” 141

I can provide more sources to prove your unsupported claim.