In its early efforts to kill the bill, Comcast spent more than $3 million in April, May and June. A large chunk of that was spent on television advertisements, but also for hiring additional lobbyists.

Dennis Mangers, president of the association(California Cable & Telecommunications Association), said he has had to resort to using the help of contract lobbyists for the first time in his 25 years of representing the cable industry in Sacramento.

When the Assembly voted 77-0 on May 31 to approve AB2987, Mangers said, he realized that defeating the bill wasn't realistic. He contacted Núñez's office and offered to support the bill if cable companies can abrogate their existing local franchises and apply for a state license, and also get a seat at the table as the legislation continues to be tweaked.

The bill was eventually amended to allow cable companies to cancel local licenses and gain a state franchise if phone companies begin service in their regions.

That has left only the local governments and consumer groups standing in opposition to the legislation.

said by TK Junk Mail :

Game, set, & match.

said by woody7 :

You would think with the "Abramoff" scandle $hit like this wouldn't happen

said by T1 Rocky :

Why is lobbying still legal?

said by T1 Rocky :

Why is lobbying still legal? Seriously, what is the difference between it and bribery?

said by Alpine :

... a good reason why so-called "consumer advocates" are against statewide franchises...

"Yes! Let's slow down implementation! That'll really help competition!"

Adam

said by Alpine :

I understand what you're saying and agree somewhat, but the realities "on the ground" have changed enough in the past several years to make some of those arguments a little obsolete.

I know of no one who watches public access. Yes, I'm sure someone will pop up here who says they watch it 15 hours a day, but they're very much in the minority. And a statewide franchise could account for this; the two things aren't necessarily mutually-exclusive.

At the same time, news and media are increasingly going national and international. Local news viewership is decreasing, but will never go away. I'd be willing to bet that vastly more people get their community news from their local nightly newscast or the Internet rather than public access channels. With all of this, I find the community access argument pretty much irrelevant.

The so-called "red-lining" is a more valid issue, even if the term is misused around here almost as much as "net neutrality." A basic tenet of business is that you bring your product to the customers most likely to buy it. That's the primary goal of advertising and marketing people. You don't advertise for Viagra on Nickelodeon (though that's obviously an exaggeration.) Similarly, you wouldn't spend millions to install fiber in neighborhoods that just won't sustain it. These companies aren't charities here. They aren't the federal government. They should be allowed to market their services where they want.

Same as above, just because a franchise agreement doesn't require 100% distribution, it doesn't mean that the telcos won't eventually provide it. It'll get there at some point, but it's going to be faster for everyone if they're allowed to turn a profit and expand. Putting up artificial barriers to deployment (while at the same time yelling "we need more competition!") and forcing them to deploy to areas at a loss only hurts deployement for everyone.

I understand the frustration if some people don't have the services they want, but this ain't the way to go about trying to get them.

Adam

said by Alpine :

I'd be willing to bet that vastly more people get their community news from their local nightly newscast or the Internet rather than public access channels. With all of this, I find the community access argument pretty much irrelevant.

said by xerxes3642 :

America has a short memory, but Californians, try to remember this when it is time for your elections. Not a single "no" vote. Everyone in your state legislature is corrupt!!

said by RadioDoc :

Unless, of course, you want to go back to the days of guaranteed-return-on-investment monopoly regulation, which would also guarantee service to everyone. It would, however, end the pipe dream of "competition" started back in the early 80's.
Would you rather they not make money?