I just hope the challengers are up to the job. We need some serious changes in that building. I can't believe those arrogant beings are passing bills like gas all of the sudden. Who do they think they are? Legislators. I hope somebody in the leadership got the message behind Yvonne Davis' speech this morning. But, I doubt it.

Yeah, the Eminent Domain bill is racing through right now. I wonder what the amendments to that sucker are?

But isn't Perry going to refuse to sign them unless the education bill goes through?

I could tell as soon as I clicked on the Statesman link that this bill was no good for us peons. Headline: "Telecommunications reform...."--STOP READING RIGHT THERE! "Reform" in Orwellian = money grab. Sure saves time on reading the articles.

Perry's spokesperson said in today's AAS that, as for not signing the telecom bill, or the legislative retirement and judicial pay raise bill, RE his earlier commitment NOT to sign any legislation until school finance passed: "He's keeping his options open." Uh huh.

Sure, SBC can hire 50 lobbyists for some ungodly amount of money and get their megabill passed. But try getting them over to your house -- this time to take care of part of a tree that fell during a storm and entangled in their wires. A supervisor came over, who had to forward the report to another supervisor, who was supposed to call but didn't, who finally when I reached him says he has to call their "contractor" who will contact me. Of course, I'm still waiting.

Perry "not signing the bill" means it passes into law after 30 days, which is an incredibly weasily way to keep the promise.

"SBC can hire 50 lobbyists"? On which planet? On ours, SBC registered lobbyists *outnumber* Texas reps.

Hey, tbyg52.....do you always believe everything that you read in the newspaper? And did you know that the AAS is OWNED by a cable company -- Cox Communications? And did you know that the cables had about as many lobbyists on the telecom bill as the telecoms did? The AAS has a vested interest in this issue, so naturally they want to protect the cable monopoly. Come one, use your brain, consider the source.

Well, hey mark. I generally get pissed off at high and mighty tones. So, I'm thinking look at the bill. Let's see. Local phone rates deregulated. State-wide franchises for the phone giants vs. cable companies tied to locally negotiated franchises. Redlining (choosing to whom in a larger community services will be provided, and to whom they won't -- i.e., lower income areas) and I'm thinking tbyg52 is right and maybe you don't have much to stand on (which replaced "you're full of crap" since I'm trying hard not to match your freaking higher-than-mighty tone). Get over yourself.

don't mess with pink, you obviously are not doing your homework either. take a look at the total capitalization of time warner, comcast and the other cable guys and then tell me who the "giant" is. let's talk in two years and see what this new competition has done to cable and TV subscription rates. i, for one, am ready for some real competition and the better technology and lower prices that will follow. by the way, i've never been called "high and mighty" before, but i kinda like it. does that make you "low and wimpy"?

mark: What's the name again of that charm school you attended? You know, it is possible to have a difference of opinion and argue with someone without calling them an idiot. Except maybe in this case.

As to the substance of your post: Indeed, we shall see. Cable costs may very well come down. But prepare for your local phone rates to go up. And we know who that will affect most. People need phones, but there aren't too many HBO subscribers in low income areas, at least not in the 'hoods I'm working in. Oh, I forgot. Those areas won't be served anyway.

you just lost all credibility. i was the one who first presented a different point of view, and you are the one who told me to get over it. sheesh. what a self-righteous individual you are. the beauty of blogs is that they give us all an opportunity to present our thoughts and arguments in a way that we do not see in the mainstream media. we need to respect that, or the value of a blog such as this will be greatly diminished. we obviously have a different point of view. that does not make you right and me wrong. now, in regard to the real purpose of this original post, i will just remind you of one thing that we all have to look forward to --- the end of automatic five percent increases in our cable rates every year. oh, and if we still can't afford it, so what? it's friggin TV. i can live without it.

Yeah, the second post was pretty snarky, so for that I'll apologize. In the first, I was reacting to your "Hey, tbyg52 do you always believe everything you read," and "come on, use your brain." Not seemingly respectful (so it got my dander up), but you may not have intended it the way I read it. Anyway, I propose we agree to disagree. The Gov will sign the bill, so whatever I think means diddly, and the outcome will be clear soon enough. If the phone co's are smart, they won't go hog-wild on their rates, but past experience w/ dereg makes me pessimistic. Now, can we all just get along?

appreciate your reply. you sound like a thinking person, and as such i'll bet you'll agree that newspapers and most mainstream media only tell you what they want you to hear. such is particularly the case in regard to this issue with a newspaper like the austin american statesman which is controlled by a cable company. that's why i think it's important to seek out other points of view, which is so easy to do in today's "information age". and, i do not intend this to be mean, but i would just ask you if you are paying more or less for long distance telephone calls since LD was deregulated? OK, enough said. let's be friends.

As long as you promise not to get all mushy, I'll shake if you will. (How would one do that on a blog?)

About the media: I agree, but I think most of the folks posting here don't take what appears in the MSM as gospel and also tend to have alternative sources of info.

As for the bill: I actually didn't know much about it, having had to focus on other things, until after it had passed. Nor did I read much in the press except for the controversy over muni wirelss. But I began questioning what was going on, and then finally read the bill itself and did some research, when I saw it referenced on other blogs as consumer unfriendly. (See "Trust But Verify" thread on In the Pink Texas, as at least some evidence that I was opened minded.)

I don't like what I see, but it probably isn't the end of the world. (And I have friends who are in the business of trying to market an animated serial to cable--and now phone co's--that are thrilled.) As for LD rates, mine are lower, but partly because I'm with USAA, who has some special deal with Sprint. Perhaps some of that has to do w/ dereg, but I have no idea how much. I haven't noticed dereg having any positive effect on my electric rates. (I know, many other causes there.) In any case, I'm worried about phone service because it can mean the difference betw/ life and death (911). And it seems the phone co's now have an unfair competitive advantage over cable. Since I have dish, what's it all mean for me? I don't care, I can afford it. I'm worried about the little guys.

Shake. (I agree about electric rates, by the way. They're outrageous.)

Shake back at ya. See you on other threads.

Hey, mark, just happened to see this after my original post. Not sure why you were berating me for "believing everything you read in the newspapers," as my OP gave no indication at all of what I do and do not read. It simply said that IMHO "reform" has become a synonym for "the people are gonna get messed over again." And I stand by that.

(And, yes, I know that was 2005 and this is 2007. I never said I was fast....)