Although the constitutional deadline was midnight, the governor has an additional 24 hours to notify the clerk of the House.
"We will make the announcements Wednesday," Roderick Hawkins, Blanco's deputy press secretary, said Tuesday...The Advertiser misses the real issues, of course. It's pretty clear that the sort of competition that sold the bill to the legislature--the promise of lower prices--is not something that AT&T has any intention of following through on. When talking to investors and banks rather than legislators they are clear on the fact that they have no intention to get into "a price war." And we hear similar comments from the cablecos. It's a classic duopoly situation. No, the real reason for this bill is, as we have insisted here from the begining, to allow AT&T/BellSouth to cherry-pick only the most profitable (read: wealthy) areas to serve. Only local governments, with their stubborn insistence that if the corporations wanted to use commonly owned property for their private profit they'd have to serve all the owner, stood in their way. What this bill changes, and very little else when it comes down to it, is to cut local governments out of the equasion.
Blanco and her staff were trying to sort out worthy projects from the frivolous, a sometimes difficult task as the added projects had no explanatory language accompanying them.
Also backed up against the deadline was the bill that would make it easier for telephone companies to offer television services in competition with cable companies, House Bill 699 by Rep. Billy Montgomery, D-Haughton.
And to make red-lining state policy in telecommunications.
Legitimating BellSouth/AT&T's bad business practices is not a worthy purpose for state legislation and the bill should be vetoed on that ground alone.