Disappointing but unsurprising. There's little to be done at the moment aside from contacting your assemblyman/state senator and making yourself heard.
I would expect, generally, that if a company is going to spend tens of billions on an acquisition, a few tens of millions on marketing material, "citizen groups", "studies", third-party editorials, etc. would be par for the course; it's pure bad business to do otherwise.
But it's possible that with enough actual calls/contacts from constituents that some progress gets made and reps can be pointed in the right direction. Hell, this being California, perhaps something similar will make it onto the state ballot at some point.
> The amendments were passed by the Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee, which is chaired by Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles). The committee approved the amended bill and referred it to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, which could reinstate the original provisions or make other changes.
So I wouldn't give up until the bill is signed and passed.
Techdirt, Wired, and others reported that the sponsor withdrew the bill in response to the committee dismantling it. So it seems like this iteration of the bill is dead.
I’m a former founder now running for California State Senate. The CA legislature has really gone out of its way to make sure that people in rural areas have crummy internet service.
For example, AB1665 provided funding to expand service to rural areas, but let big ISPs like AT&T veto any money given to new market entrants.
And then this. Fortunately, new wireless technology like 5G LTE will change the market dynamics for the better, so long as we can get the permits to build the damn towers.
There is a bit more detailed discussion here, listing the supporters of the amendment, as well as the fact that Miguel Santiago has an upcoming election with an opponent potentially much more inclined to support Net Neutrality.
>>I would expect, generally, that if a company is going to spend tens of billions on an acquisition, a few tens of millions on marketing material, "citizen groups", "studies", third-party editorials, etc. would be par for the course; it's pure bad business to do otherwise.
OK, but Google, AMZN, APPL and MSFT (the other side of the equation) can buy AT&T with their pocket change. Obviously outspend them by a huge margin in any campaign. So either AT&T is wayyyy more motivated or they have an edge in this debate. Investments in x area? Jobs?
Lobbying power isn't just a factor of market cap. For example, consider how media groups such as the RIAA and MPAA have pushed for ever more intellectual property laws despite being smaller than the groups that would benefit from copyright reform. Similarly with Article 11 and 13 of the proposed EU digital copyright directive.
There's only so much money you can throw at lobbying: beyond a certain point there's diminishing returns, not to mention the criticism (warranted or not) that lobbying tends to atttract. Industries that employ more people or have a strong local presence can also punch above their weight. And of course, much as we might pretend otherwise politicians are capable of holding their own opinions, too.
It's not just AT&T that's opposed to this bill, either. A wide range of cable companies and ISPs are lobbying against it:
> AT&T and the lobby group that represents Comcast, Charter, Cox, and other cable companies have been making their displeasure known to lawmakers in advance of hearings on a bill that could impose the toughest net neutrality law in the nation. The California bill implements the FCC's basic net neutrality rules from 2015, but it also bans paid zero-rating arrangements in which home or mobile Internet providers charge online services for data cap exemptions.
No, not pocket change. It was an expression. Bezos, alone, might need a loan to buy them :) https://people.com/human-interest/jeff-bezos-net-worth-141-b... . Apple has (or had) more at hand than $200B. But then you have to assume At&t debts and liabilities too.
Read the article. It says very clearly that AT&T has got "good" lawyers performing this schtick for years; some of them "write the laws" i.e. regulatory capture.
Big in what sense? I used one metric, market cap, and AAPL, AMZN, MSFT, GOOG, FB wipe the floor with the 100 year old company. Even in profits At&t is not close to overpowering big tech. So I asked, why then is ATT winning the lobbying battles?
Where are you getting your data? AT&T market cap is over 200B, _before_ Time Warner merger. Plus this data fails to take into account the infrastructure holdings and government contracts they have, which are enormous.
I would expect, generally, that if a company is going to spend tens of billions on an acquisition, a few tens of millions on marketing material, "citizen groups", "studies", third-party editorials, etc. would be par for the course; it's pure bad business to do otherwise.
But it's possible that with enough actual calls/contacts from constituents that some progress gets made and reps can be pointed in the right direction. Hell, this being California, perhaps something similar will make it onto the state ballot at some point.