The group is called Consumers for Cable Choice. It describes itself as "an alliance of consumer organizations across the nation committed to the development of a competitive, vibrant cable communications market."
The group says its goal "is an open, diverse, pro-consumer market for cable subscribers that will stimulate price, choice and service options."
What's not to like?
For one thing, Consumers for Cable Choice, which presents itself to policymakers as the voice of the people, isn't exactly a consumer group. Its "alliance of consumer organizations" is actually a loose collection of regulatory gadflies and interest groups with ties to the telecom industry
For another, Consumers for Cable Choice is funded to a large extent by phone giants Verizon and SBC, which are set to offer TV service to millions of customers but want the rules changed so they don't have to jump through as many regulatory hoops as cable companies.
On Monday, the Federal Communications Commission approved SBC's takeover of AT&T and Verizon's purchase of MCI.
Bob Johnson, the president of Consumers for Cable Choice, acknowledged having received $75,000 in startup funds from Verizon this summer and "a commensurate amount" from SBC.
"It doesn't undermine the credibility of our organization," he told me. "The bottom line is that is that if you want to get your message out, you need the financial resources to do it."
Consumers for Cable Choice, Johnson argued, is firmly convinced that prices will come down and service will improve if phone companies can smoothly enter the TV business using sophisticated fiber-optic networks.
And this will happen, he said, only if so-called franchise rules are relaxed nationwide, allowing phone companies to bypass negotiations with local governments and to build video-ready networks basically wherever they choose.
Franchise regulations for cable companies typically require that service be made available to all residents of a