Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 12, 2008

AP minus &T

Filed under: Alameda, Public Resources — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 2:26 pm

A tipster just wrote in to tell me that AP&T employees were informed that &T has been sold to Comcast.   Twelve people have been will be given the boot due to the if the sell-off is approved.

I give Comcast three months before they jack everyone’s rates up for cable.

[edited to add]

JKW has much more nuanced details about the possible sale.



  1. This is not a done deal.

    Tonight, at 7:00 at the Officer’s Club at the Naval Air Station, AP&T staff will give a presentation about the AP&T telecom division.

    The public is invited. Show up, hear what they say.

    This is one part of a long process.

    Comment by RM — November 12, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

  2. A long process that ends next Tuesday if the PUB and City Council say “sell it.”

    Comment by Johnknoxwhite — November 12, 2008 @ 2:51 pm

  3. The transfer date has been set, with layoff notices for Nov. 21.

    Comment by Tipster — November 12, 2008 @ 3:14 pm

  4. Can we now go back to calling it the Bureau of Electricity?

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 12, 2008 @ 4:52 pm

  5. Comcast BLOWS … can we all agree on that???

    Comment by Jeff R. Thomason — November 12, 2008 @ 7:25 pm

  6. Looks like it has already happened.

    “Today’s Edition of the Don Roberts TV Show Will Not be Broadcast on AP&T, but Will be Broadcast on Comcast Ch. 28

    In an effort to streamline its operations, Alameda Power & Telecom will relocate its Channel 31 cablecasting operations equipment.”

    Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — November 12, 2008 @ 8:22 pm

  7. At the meeting tonight Dave Hart, Len Grzanka, the Kevins, Kearney and Kennedy all spoke. Nobody said anything earth shattering. They all said it’s a damn good thing the sale is going through and we are lucky to get $15 million.

    Len was against this plan from the inception, deserves credit for calling it and will never let anybody forget it. I hadn’t seen him speaking in public in a long while. Dave Hart had apparently spoken at a previous meeting and it was obvious whatever he had said then carried over, because he seemed to command the attention of the PUB. The Kevins have previously also gone on record asking the City to get out of the telecom business and their opinions seem well regarded.

    There was one other speaker, David Howard. His comments were really no different than the others, but I was struck at the gravity he seemed to lend to his own opinion. He announced that he approved of the sale, as if the PUB and all of Alameda were waiting breathless for his approval, because he is a local authority of some kind. He told the PUB that he would speak on behalf of the sale before Council next week, also as if putting his seal on the deal is really essential. Clearly Mr. Howard considers himself a player. I can’t figure out why.

    Comment by Mark Irons — November 12, 2008 @ 10:02 pm

  8. One lesson going forward is to focus on core services. To what extent should we view the Redevelopment Agency as the City equivalent of the Telecom portion of AP&T?

    Comment by Mike Rich — November 13, 2008 @ 11:49 am

  9. Hey Mike, an intriguing thought, but I’m not sure I see the connection, can you elaborate? (late meeting, lack of sleep, probably just being daft).

    Comment by Johnknoxwhite — November 13, 2008 @ 11:56 am

  10. JKW, the electricity bureau provides a basic service over which the City holds a market monopoly, whereas the telecom business is (was) an enterprise opportunity in a traditional market environment. The Redevelopment Agency is more similar to the telecom business than, say, the Police Department. Cities typically hold a monopoly for the core services they provide, with some exceptions. Redevelopment activities are more in the nature of enterprise opportunities where success or failure is not guaranteed, there is no monopoly and market forces are in play. By making the comparison I am not suggesting that we should cease redevelopment activities because they are too risky, but neither should we assume that no risk is involved or that positive outcomes are assured.

    Comment by Mike Rich — November 13, 2008 @ 2:34 pm

  11. Thanks for the clarification.

    I agree with you wholeheartedly.

    Comment by Johnknoxwhite — November 13, 2008 @ 3:14 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at