I'm surprised as well. It's this quote from the KNS article, that caught me:
"But I think the reality was, I think, that AT&T had something embedded in this legislation that would have given them an unfair advantage. When I did the rewrite, I think they lost that."
I disagree that both sides "got what they wanted" with this withdrawal, AT&T surely didn't get what they wanted -- but, I'm glad for that. But, what the hell was embedded that was so important?

At this point, those against this bill cannot sit back on their laurels and just wait until the next session to see if this will re-emerge. During this time, education of more people on how destructive the bill would actually be, especially at the local level, is imperative. The way I read the possibility of a return, in the KNS article, is 'if there is a change in opinion.' Thus getting more people to understand how local governments would lose if they support this bill, is key to getting it killed all together, IMHO.

Rep. Charles Curtiss (D-Sparta), another House sponsor, said he was unhappy with the fact that the legislation would be delayed.

“I’m not happy,” Curtiss said. “But it was a calculated risk. I knew we were running a gamble. The deck was stacked against the proposition the whole time. But it would’ve really been good for the citizens of this state had we gotten competition this year. It’s a pretty big let down for me.”

Sparta?

OK, now that's weird.

Curtiss can't be serious. He's shilling for a plan which he wouldn't be able to sell in his own home district. Sparta isn't even served by AT&T/BellSouth for local service. Ben Lomand is the provider out there.

So how do the constituents of Sparta "benefit" from increased competition in the cable market? If this bill were to pass, the residents of Sparta effectively get the same choice that they had before the bill was introduced.

____________________________

Am I the only solipsist here?