Statewide Franchise Illegal? Detroit Sues Comcast

jqpublic13 writes "The City of Detroit, Michigan, is suing Comcast's local subsidiary citing a 2006 agreement which the City says violates the constitutions of both the United States and the state of Michigan. They claim that a federal act from 1984 supersedes the local agreement. Comcast has 20 days to respond."

Comments

Detroit is broke

[XxtraLarGe]

This is probably more about shaking down deep pockets than anything else. Yeah, I RTFA.

Re:Detroit is broke

[Lunix Nutcase]

Except for the fact that nothing in the article states they are seeking money?

Re:Detroit is broke

[chill]

Probably, but it looks like they have a case. It will hinge on whether Comcast is considered a "public utility".

Michigan Constitution, Article 7, Paragraph 29:

No person, partnership, association or corporation, public or private, operating a public utility shall have the right to the use of the highways, streets, alleys or other public places of any county, township, city or village for wires, poles, pipes, tracks, conduits or other utility facilities, without the consent of the duly constituted authority of the county, township, city or village; or to transact local business therein without first obtaining a franchise from the township, city or village. Except as otherwise provided in this constitution the right of all counties, townships, cities and villages to the reasonable control of their highways, streets, alleys and public places is hereby reserved to such local units of government.

Re:Detroit is broke

[firex726]

Not directly but they are wanting Comcast to provide a lot of free services. Looks like they signed a new contract and now have buyers remorse and want the terms of the old one. FTA: The city said that since imposing a new franchise agreement in April 2007, Comcast has violated the 1985 franchise by ceasing to provide free drops and service to municipal school buildings, failing to provide a data network for communication between city buildings, ceased making payments to support local public and educational programming, and closed local public and educational video studios and ceased providing mobile units, equipment, staff and maintenance.

Re:Detroit is broke

[commodore64_love]

Clearly you didn't read enough of the fucking article, because the real issue is that Detroit's contract requires Comcast to provide free cable to their schools, public buildings, and other benefits, in exchange for being granted a monopoly within the city. On the flip side Comcast claims it no longer has to provide those freebies thanks to a 2007 Michigan law. Detroit's argument is that the MI Law violates the MI Constitution, and as far as I can tell, Detroit is correct.

Comcast could solve this issue, without cost, simply by honoring the Detroit Contract they signed rather than ignoring it.

As for "shaking down" I pretty much hate comcast right now. My brother's analog comcast was $65 when discontinued, and raised to $85 digital cable. Difference? Analog cable was a flat fee regardless how many TVs you had, where digital charges $5 per set. Per month. I call that GREED on the part of comcast.

Re:Detroit is broke

[bundio]

No the articles implies it. They are mad because Comcast no longer offers the certain services to governmental agencies for free. So yes it is about money.

Re:Detroit is broke

[commodore64_love]

Yet another person who didn't bother to read the fucking article. Detroit/Comcast did NOT sign a new contract. The old 1985 agreement is still in full force (according to Detroit) whereas Comcast claims a Michigan law nullified the contract. Detroit's argument is that Michigan has no power to nullify contracts (per the MI Constitution). I think Detroit is correct.

Re:Detroit is broke

[bluefoxlucid]

Comcast then (2 months ago): "We don't want to be the worst company in america again..."

Comcast now: "Well we signed a contract but the law says we don't have to actually make good on our promises! ^_^ So you're screwed!"

Assholes.

Re:Detroit is broke

[luther349]

i used to live there. i tel you even after i moved cable rates still suck.im a dish network fan now. let those fools keep playing 85$ for there cable ill keep paying 40$ for my dish. and my contract has a lifetime price lock meaning my rates can never go up. you gotta rember wile comcast will bend over to any fees networks make up the guys at dish are always fighting with networks to keep the price down. normally Viacom cousin shit.

Re:Detroit is broke

[elrous0]

Oh, but they'll argue that it's for the consumer! Of course, you're right. It's not "We want more choice and freedom, for the benefit of the people," more like "Hey, we want our cut!"

Re:Detroit is broke

[Sockatume]

Yeah, the deep pockets of the American taxpayer. You have any idea what a state-sanctioned monopoly is worth to a company like that?

Re:Detroit is broke

[bondsbw]

Agreed, a contract is a contract. If one side violates it, the other is no longer held to the agreement and can sue for breach of contract. Detroit has that ability, unless it's determined that Detroit violated their contract because of the Michigan law.

Re:Detroit is broke

[poetmatt]

well if a court declares comcast a public utility that could go a long way in making some necessary changes.

Re:Detroit is broke

[Anonymous Coward]

> Comcast could solve this issue, without cost,
> simply by honoring the Detroit Contract they
> signed rather than ignoring it.

Really? I am pretty sure those services cost
*something* to provide and support. One can
argue as to how much (we are talking about more
than just a cable drop here, we are also talking
about studios and trucks and staff to run them).

In the end, this case is really between the
city and the state, and whose contracts apply.
Comcast is just the convenient company onto
which you can hang a lawsuit. Could not happen
to a nicer company....

Re:Detroit is broke

[Balthisar]

It's not really Detroit vs. Comcast, but Detroit versus the state. Detroit argues that it has local franchise authority. Comcast argues that the state law supersedes that authority. Detroit argues back that federal law and/or the Constitution overrides the state law. So really, it's the city of Detroit versus the state of Michigan, here. I wonder why Detroit just doesn't sue the state in the first place?

Re:Detroit is broke

[Anonymous Coward]

the box is illegal comcast knows it. and they are whoring it as long as they can before the box gets shut down again. how is the box illegal? oh yeah they determined it in the 80's

Re:Detroit is broke

[Pharmboy]

It would appear to be a very clear interpretation of their constitution. Even if Comcast had not backed out of their original contract to provide free services to public institutions, it would not matter. The MI state constitution clearly says that franchises are the responsibility of the local governments, then the state stomped on that by signing a state wide deal with Comcast. It is a clear matter of constitutional law, and very much a valid case.

Re:Detroit is broke

[Wiarumas]

Detroit kinda had it coming promoting a monopoly like that. Did they really think that they could tame the beast? Comcast operates off profits... not goodwill. Even if Comcast honored the original contract, the issue still remains that there is a monopoly. Its only a matter of time before something like this happens again or worse.

Re:Detroit is broke

[Anonymous Coward]

No it is Detroit against Comcast. Comcast is choosing to ignore the original contract and their argument is that the new state law allows them to do it. Sounds like Detroit is playing the public relations card. The city wants to show that Comcast is cutting on free services that every subscriber pays for. There is a fee collected from every subscriber to pay for these free services. Did Comcast stop collecting that fee ?

There is a conflict between laws here and a court will sort it out.

Re:Detroit is broke

[Anonymous Coward]

The services are not free. Comcast collects a franchise fee from every customer to provide these services.

Re:Detroit is broke

[mea37]

I hear a lot of people saying Comcast is "ingoring the contract they signed". I'd like to hear a few more facts before jumping on that bandwagon.

The contract was pretty old. A contract with a term that long usually has termination clauses. Have you read the contract to know if it has such clauses? Do you know if Comcast exercised them properly?

Granted, if they did, and if the law on which they were relying when they decided to abandon that contract gets overturned, then they'll likely find themselves needing to negotiate a new contract with the city.

I'm no fan of most cable companies. I've not dealt with Comcast but am not impressed with their reputation. However, I don't think you can reasonably hold that they're responsible for knowing that the state law isn't valid (if indeed it isn't). I've argued the other side of that issue when there were obvious individual rights violations going on (e.g. AT&T allegedly cooperating with illegal wiretaps), but that isn't the case here.

If they assumed it was a valid law and granted them authority to operate in Detroit, then the original contract becomes superfluous to them and as a for-profit business their only option would be to try to jettison it. The only thing left to blame them for would be if their original contract really didn't have a termination clause (or they didn't follow the rules of that clause). Even then it's a murky area; if Comcast was no longer getting meaningful consideration from the contract (because what they get is something they already have - authority to operate as a momopoly in Detroit) then arguably it was no longer a valid contract.

IMO the correct course of action for Detroit would have been to challenge the law directly, then sort things out (preferably non-adversarially) with Comcast once the status of the law was determined.

Re:Detroit is broke

[michael_cain]

It will be more complicated than that. FCC rules have the force of federal law, so trump the Michigan state constitution. In recent years, the FCC has stripped local franchising authorities of considerable authority. At least some of the provisions in this paragraph are clearly no longer enforceable; eg, under certain conditions the federal rules allow a company to use public right of way to provide video services even though they failed to reach a franchise agreement with the local authority. Since this paragraph can't apply to companies providing video services, it is at least arguable that state-wide video service franchising is okay. In addition, Comcast provides communications services (voice and Internet) over the same fiber-coax infrastructure, and franchising authority for those kinds of services have been outside of local control for a long time.

As for the free service for schools and municipal buildings: the latest FCC rules nullify that if those "in kind" services are being used to circumvent the federal cap on franchise fees.

Re:Detroit is broke

[Lumpy]

It's just like every other franchise contract.

  the contract is in effect until there is competition, until then the Monopoly shall follow the terms of the contract.

Comcast did this to protect themselves by making the cost of entry for competition to detroit (and other communities) very expensive. In some places like my home town it's actually "illegal" for me to start my own cable company as it is in the franchise contract.

Learn about Franchise contracts, and fight against them.

Re:Detroit is broke

[Anonymous Coward]

The contract was only 4 years old, that's really not the long. Secondly, contracts like this typically have a severability clause that comes into play in situations like this. A change of this magnitude would justify a complete redo of the contract. That's assuming that Comcast has a legitimate right to claim that they don't have to hold up their end of things. Which is doubtful as they've apparently interpreted things such that they don't have to pay for the privilege that they bought.

Re:Detroit is broke

[Anonymous Coward]

You are only partially correct. It was determined illegal to require "the box". Comcast does not currently require "the box". You can use a tv without it by using cablecards. They are required to provide you one if you ask, however, they don't need to do so for free. I believe the cablecards are $5 in my area.

Re:Detroit is broke

[tgd]

Comcast charges a fee per cable box, DVR or cable card. If you have a digital cable ready TV, it works just fine and there is no per month charge.

I have a TV in my guest room and in my garage that both have QAM tuners and get all the digital channels (including HD) just fine without any per-set fee.

Did you expect them to give you hardware for free?

Re:Detroit is broke

[DigiShaman]

Comcast can charge $999 a month or whatever the market will bare. Doesn't mean you should like it. No, just don't subscribe. I don't except for their Internet service.

The real heart of this issue is PR. If Comcast continues down this path, the competition will have their lunch once G4 wireless Internet/IPTV services roll out. Don't make a bad name for yourself. And if you do, just change your name to something like Xfinity... And remember. If you can't polish a turd, roll it in glitter.

Re:Detroit is broke

[u-235-sentinel]

I hear a lot of people saying Comcast is "ingoring the contract they signed". I'd like to hear a few more facts before jumping on that bandwagon.

The contract was pretty old. A contract with a term that long usually has termination clauses. Have you read the contract to know if it has such clauses? Do you know if Comcast exercised them properly?

Granted, if they did, and if the law on which they were relying when they decided to abandon that contract gets overturned, then they'll likely find themselves needing to negotiate a new contract with the city.

I'm no fan of most cable companies. I've not dealt with Comcast but am not impressed with their reputation. However, I don't think you can reasonably hold that they're responsible for knowing that the state law isn't valid (if indeed it isn't). I've argued the other side of that issue when there were obvious individual rights violations going on (e.g. AT&T allegedly cooperating with illegal wiretaps), but that isn't the case here.

If they assumed it was a valid law and granted them authority to operate in Detroit, then the original contract becomes superfluous to them and as a for-profit business their only option would be to try to jettison it. The only thing left to blame them for would be if their original contract really didn't have a termination clause (or they didn't follow the rules of that clause). Even then it's a murky area; if Comcast was no longer getting meaningful consideration from the contract (because what they get is something they already have - authority to operate as a momopoly in Detroit) then arguably it was no longer a valid contract.

IMO the correct course of action for Detroit would have been to challenge the law directly, then sort things out (preferably non-adversarially) with Comcast once the status of the law was determined.

Whether the contract was old or not, it was the contract signed by Concast and is in force unless there was a sunset added to the contract. The company love to pull these kind of stunts. Which is why after 3 years we still haven't gone back to them (despite the weekly advertisements we're still getting to our mail box).

In my contract the company stated we had unlimited use for a flat monthly fee. Then people started saying it was unlimited access not use. Uhhhh... That's NOT what the written contract says. But then again they have the cables and cut it for 12 months and now they want us back? After treating us like this they have some serious stones there.

I don't blame Detroit for wanting what was agreed upon in the contract. If Concast doesn't like it then they can break the contract and let Detriot take care of itself. I'm sure they have no problem with that.

Re:Detroit is broke

[mea37]

No, the state law that Detroit is trying to overturn is about 4 years old. The contract Comcast is said to be ignoring, on the other hand... From TFA: "The city is seeking to overturn Comcast's current franchise agreement with the city and reinstate its 1985 franchise." And: "...since imposing a new franchise agreement in April 2007, Comcast has violated the 1985 franchise..."

That makes the contract in question 25 years old. Thanks for playing.

Re:Detroit is broke

[commodore64_love]

>>>It will be more complicated than that. FCC rules have the force of federal law, so trump the Michigan state constitution.

Yeah but the National Constitution trumps federal law and nullifies it. See the recent case where the Supreme Court said the Constitution gives the FCC no power to regulate Comcast's Net Neutrality. The National Constitution grants no power to the national government to regulate cable lines *inside* a state, or inside a city (Detroit), so the Feds have no power in this matter.

All the power to regulate inside a state (per the 10th amendment) is reserved to the Michigan State Constitution. And the MI constitution reserves the power of establishing utility contracts to the cities.

This matter is purely between Detroit City and Comcast Cable, and whether or not the contract was breached. It appears it was.

Re:Detroit is broke

[snarfies]

Because the state of Michigan has NO MONEY - Comcast has tons.

Re:Detroit is broke

[commodore64_love]

>>>Uhhhh... That's NOT what the written contract says.

Yeah but it probably includes a clause that says XYZ Company can change the terms any time they feel like it. Your only recourse is to either accept the new terms, or terminate the service.

Re:Detroit is broke

[nametaken]

Yeah but who knew there were still people living in Detroit?

Re:Detroit is broke

[commodore64_love]

>>>Comcast can charge $999 a month or whatever the market will bare

What market? Comcast was given a government-granted monopoly inside Detroit. No other company can provide cable TV. No choice == no free market

Re:Detroit is broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's this Comcast? I thought this great new company called Xfinity was offering cable services in Michigan.

Re:Detroit is broke

[michael_cain]

In some places like my home town it's actually "illegal" for me to start my own cable company as it is in the franchise contract.

Such provisions are now null and void. The latest FCC rules on the matter require that the city allow competing networks and that they negotiate with you on franchise terms. If you and the city do not reach an agreement within a specified period of time, you're allowed to go ahead and build your network. The city is not allowed to discriminate against you on things like fees for opening the street; ie, they have to charge you the same rate they would charge the incumbent.

If your city's franchise agreement follows the standard model, somewhere in the contract is language that says the terms and conditions can be changed to conform to federal statutes, and also that sections are "severable": that if one section has to be changed or dropped to conform, the other sections remain in force. This is probably what is happening in Detroit with respect to the free service for schools and municipal buildings. New FCC rules state that such service cannot be used to circumvent the federal cap on local franchise fees for video services. If the cash franchise fees Comcast pays are at the federal maximum, then they can't be required to provide any free service. At least not as I read the rules, but IANAL.

Re:Detroit is broke

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is not a state-wide issue. In northern Michigan where I live, we have Charter as our cable provider.

Re:Detroit is broke

[DigiShaman]

True, it is a monopoly on cable services. But you don't have to subscribe nor should you be compelled to do so. If you really want TV service (as limited as they are), you could always go over-the-air or Dish Network. But again, entertainment isn't like water and electricity which you have to have.

Ya, Comcast can suck my balls. But the least I can do is not reward bad behavior. Though I am pleased with their Internet services, so I still do business with them on that front.

Re:Detroit is broke

[JourneymanMereel]

I ran like this quite some time. Then one day out of nowhere, it just stopped working. Comcast started encrypting the channels I had been receiving for months in clear QAM. No the only stations I can get w/out those external boxes are ones I could get if I put up an antenna and stopped paying Comcast. Guess what I'm doing after I move.

Re:Detroit is broke

[michael_cain]

The relevant paragraph of the state constitution also grants certain powers to the local franchising authority that are denied to them by FCC rules adopted in the last few years. Specifically, under the FCC rule, there are conditions under which video services can be provided without a local franchise. In the case of such conflicts, federal rule trumps state constitution (the Supremacy Clause, as interpreted by federal and state courts). In effect, the FCC rule tacks a sentence onto this paragraph of the Michigan constitution that says, "But this paragraph does not apply to the provision of video services." Whether that's enough to allow state-wide franchising of video services is an open issue. The Michigan Supreme Court might decide that the constitutional language forbids the state from doing franchising at all. OTOH, they might decide that state-wide franchising is fine for situations in which the local authority is unable to act due to federal rule. Depending on other language in the state constitution, the decision could go either way.

Re:Detroit is broke

[DrgnDancer]

I think the problem is that the state has negotiated a new contract with Comcast that Comsast and the state claim overrides Detroit's original contract. Imagine we live in an apartment building. When we all signed our leases, the building management said: "You handle your own cable." So we did. You called Comcast and got a sweet package deal with all the channels you wanted and Internet, I called a month later got a different package that included a land line phone, and Bob down the hall called Cox and hooked up an Internet only thing because he never watches TV and has a Vonage phone.

6 months later, the building sends out a note saying that they've negotiated a new contract with Cox. Cox will now be the only available cable provider in the building, and they've negotiated a new fee structure that will allow every everyone to have basic cable cheap and all other services added on ala-carte. The new fee structure is mandatory. So now you and I have to get Cox, and Bob has to get basic cable that he'll never watch. Bob's bill goes up of course. Yours goes down, but it turns out that you can't get The Major League Soccer Channel, which was the whole reason you got Comcast in the first place. My bill goes up a little, because Cox apparently charges a lot more for telephone service.

Can the building do that? Probably depends on the laws in its particular jurisdiction. In this case, Detroit seems to believe that that state does not have the authority to negotiate a contract binding on the City Government. Is Detroit right? I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a Michigan Lawyer, but a casual reading of the Detroit's chosen laws seems to indicate that they have good case at the very least.

Re:Detroit is broke

[CompMD]

"Detroit's contract requires Comcast to provide free cable to their schools, public buildings, and other benefits, in exchange for being granted a monopoly within the city."

The local cable company in my city had the same situation. They were contractually obligated to provide free cable and internet access to all the public schools. The cable company went ahead and did this, and proceeded to bill the city, which without thinking, paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Since the cable company also owns the local newspaper and television station, no news of this fleecing of the city ever made it into the public eye. The few people who actually paid attention to city expenditures and had a neighborhood co-op ISP raised hell over this, but the city did nothing. Not surprisingly, each of the city commissioners lists their *official* email address as belonging to the domain of the local cable company.

I wouldn't mind seeing a meteor hit their building.

Re:Detroit is broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Comcast is just using statelaw as an excuse to get what it wants? Or paid to have the law enacted.

Re:Detroit is broke

[10101001 10101001]

So really, it's the city of Detroit versus the state of Michigan, here. I wonder why Detroit just doesn't sue the state in the first place?

Probably because Detroit wouldn't having standing to sue the state of Michigan, directly. Directly, though, they can show that Comcast trying to follow the state law does give them standing to challenge the law. Admittedly Comcast is in something of a rock and hard place, anyways (if they had ignored the state law the state of Michigan probably would have sued them). Of course, I guess Comcast could have just sued the state for trying to impose unconstitutional law. Perhaps they were betting on no city or township trying to sue them.

Re:Detroit is broke

[mea37]

Did you even read my comment, or is your understanding of contracts just that limited? If I had said "a contract that old doesn't matter", you might have a point; but that isn't what I said.

1) I'm pointing out that the contract they signed probably has termination clauses; unless you have access to the contract to read those clauses, you have no idea whether your assessment is correct.

2) If Comcast is not getting any consideration for a contract, even if it is "the contract they signed", it is not a legal contract. I'm unaware whether this can be applied to contracts that historically conveyed consideration in both directions, but based on the tone of your comment I'll bet you don't know either.

You obviously have an axe to grind with Comcast. You may have a valid complaint against them. In the context of this discussion, I don't care if you do; how they've wronged you has nothing to do with whether they're right or wrong in this case.

Re:Detroit is broke

[u-235-sentinel]

Did you even read my comment, or is your understanding of contracts just that limited? If I had said "a contract that old doesn't matter", you might have a point; but that isn't what I said.

1) I'm pointing out that the contract they signed probably has termination clauses; unless you have access to the contract to read those clauses, you have no idea whether your assessment is correct.

2) If Comcast is not getting any consideration for a contract, even if it is "the contract they signed", it is not a legal contract. I'm unaware whether this can be applied to contracts that historically conveyed consideration in both directions, but based on the tone of your comment I'll bet you don't know either.

You obviously have an axe to grind with Comcast. You may have a valid complaint against them. In the context of this discussion, I don't care if you do; how they've wronged you has nothing to do with whether they're right or wrong in this case.

Let's see here.. Start with a ad-hominum then go to they probably have termination clauses. Let's back something up here ok?
Axe to grind? I don't give a shit about the company anymore. 3 years and Concast free.

Re:Detroit is broke

[u-235-sentinel]

>>>Uhhhh... That's NOT what the written contract says.

Yeah but it probably includes a clause that says XYZ Company can change the terms any time they feel like it. Your only recourse is to either accept the new terms, or terminate the service.

I appreciate the comment. makes more sense hearing it that way. Still we don't know this for sure otherwise the city probably shouldn't be suing if that was the case.

Re:Detroit is broke

[michael_cain]

The National Constitution grants no power to the national government to regulate cable lines *inside* a state, or inside a city (Detroit), so the Feds have no power in this matter.

Nonsense.

The FCC has been regulating cable service in a wide variety of ways for decades. It doesn't matter whether you or I think the 10th Amendment reserves such regulatory authority to the states; the US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld both Congress's authority to regulate cable television services and its ability to delegate that authority to the FCC. Including many cases where FCC actions modify or even nullify contract terms between the cable company and the local franchising authority.

The recent ruling was extremely narrow: it held that the FCC had failed to tie its network neutrality action to specific statutory authority. It did not say that Congress didn't have the authority to require network neutrality; it did not say that Congress couldn't delegate such authority to the FCC; it said that Congress had not currently provided the FCC with statutory authority to require network neutrality. And the ruling applied only to internet access services, not to voice or video. Inasmuch as this Detroit/Comcast case appears to be purely about video service, the recent Supreme Court opinion has exactly zero bearing.

Re:Detroit is broke

[Pharmboy]

Federal rules do not automatically trump state constitutions. That is what the courts are for, to determine.

Re:Detroit is broke

[michael_cain]

Alright, I'll add one word: any valid federal rule takes precedent over any provision in a state constitution. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), plus 100 years of SCOTUS case law on Congressional delegation of rule-making authority have settled the issue completely. If a state challenges a federal rule in court on the sole grounds that the rule conflicts with the state constitution, the federal government will ask for, and get, a summary judgment tossing the case. There are basically three ways to get a rule invalidated:

1. Congress does not have authority to legislate in a particular area. The current state challenge to the health care reform act is an example. If the states prevail, any rules issued by the federal DHHS under the authority of that act will be invalidated.
2. Congress has not delegated the appropriate authority to the agency. The recent SCOTUS decision on net neutrality was made on this basis. Note that that decision did not say that Congress could not authorize the FCC to enforce network neutrality, only that Congress had not yet done so.
3. The agency making the rule has not followed the rule-making procedure specified by Congress. This is pretty rare, as bureaucrats are good at procedure.

The vast majority of federal rules that conflict with state constitutional provisions are never challenged. The rule is followed and the state constitution ignored because precedence is a settled matter.

Re:Detroit is broke

[forkazoo]

What market? Comcast was given a government-granted monopoly inside Detroit. No other company can provide cable TV. No choice == no free market

The hilarious thing is that the only real question is *which* government granted Comcast the current monopoly in Detroit. Was it the city or the State... Oddly, there is a market. It's levels of governments competing to offer the best deal to the company.

Re:Detroit is broke

[mabhatter654]

the point would be Comcast is not getting anything ELSE out of the 1985 contract because they signed a new contract with the State they are claiming supersedes it. So they have no obligation to honor the old terms... they just go "poof".

OK, I went and used the Googles.... it looks like the 2006 Michigan law allowed a state wide "uniform agreement" structure. So it's not a "franchise" but it essentially allowed Comcast to re-negotiate all their contracts, and the state put a time-bomb on the Cable Company's side so that localities are hand-tied with how long they have to review and approve contracts before "mandatory" licensing takes place. So essentially Comcast wrote it's OWN contracts and handed them off about 9 months after the legislature forgot what they signed in most of the major cities and towns. It doesn't look like they pay ANY fees to the State directly either. Since then they've been cutting services as quickly as they can and raising fees by requiring digital boxes at the "basic" level... but not calling it "basic". There's a lot of stuff they just wrote out of the new agreements, municipal service to local government offices, education services, PEG channels. There's no room for cities to negotiate because of the mandatory time tables.... the contract is considered "valid" after a certain time passes.

Essentially the Michigan law left the negotiations up to localities, but included none of the standard cable requirements like service to government, education, PEG channels, etc. Ironically, they did it to make ATT a legal "video" provider over DSL by piggy backing on their state-wide phone franchise, except without the strings. It's a smart idea, because there is only really a need for one communications wire into your house now, but the state bungled it thinking companies would keep doing "business as usual" when they could find a way legally not to.

Re:Detroit is broke

[mabhatter654]

The problem is that the law as negotiated has nothing to do with being a "franchise contract" it merely outlines the procedures localities have to follow to set up contracts. Essentially it allows the cable companies to use the state "uniform rules" to uniformly strong arm the localities into whatever contract Cable wants... there are time limits on how long a locality can "negotiate" for before the state requires the contract to be signed and permits for work granted. Essentially it put cable companies on the same footing as telephone companies for negotiating right-of-way... but did not lay out ANY of the required levels of service like is done for phone... essentially all the goodies without the strings. The law was written to allow ATT to offer TV shows over their DSL or Fiber lines, of course those lines all have required service levels for the PHONE service, but cable and "data service" has none of those restrictions as the perks were negotiated locally.

Essentially the state sold out the localities for free.

Re:Detroit is broke

[mabhatter654]

no, the state created a law which allowed Comcast to write terrible contracts and forced the localities to approve them on very short timelines or have the contract ACCEPTED BY THE LOCALITY BY DEFAULT. In sort cable companies could show up with 10k pages of contract terms and the localities only had something like 30 days to make a decision...The lawyers and boards can't even decipher and VOTE in such a short amount of time! All Cable had to do was be terribly wordy, and egregious and wait out the "default" clock.

Detroit is saying the state had no right to create the terms that REQUIRED the locality to grant contracts so quickly, but didn't guarantee any of the standard terms. Therefore the contract pushed through under the new law was void and they go back to the 1985 one. The state didn't make a "contract" or get any remuneration from cable companies, they just tied the local government's hands at the negotiation table.

Re:Detroit is broke

[commodore64_love]

But the Michigan law is null-and-void due to the Michigan Constitution saying cities retain the power to negotiate contracts. In other words, the MI Constitution says nobody can tell Detroit City what to do in their Comcast negotiations.

They have a point

[afidel]

The statewide franchises were a huge bone thrown to the megacorps AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon. I know in my previous residence we would have never received cable internet if the local franchise agreement hadn't required it by a certain date with significant penalties for non-compliance.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

THESE statewide-granted monopolies and the recent (yesterday) decision to eliminate channels 31 to 51 on broadcast television is telling me that the Nobility are no longer serving the People. They are serving the corporations. ----- For digital television 2-6 are worthless (as people trying to watch WPVI6 can attest). And channels 14-20(?) are reserved for land mobile. So what's really left is 7-13 and 21-31 - simply not enough room for all the networks, especially in high population areas like the I95 corridor and east coast.

And again to reiterate: We're talking about going from FREE television to ~$1000/year wireless internet television. In other words damaging the people. The FCC and White House are no longer serving us - they are serving the bottom line of ATT, Google, Microsoft, and other corporations.

And now I read this nonsense about Michigan and other states giving exclusive monopolies to Comcast and other megacorps. Unbelievable.

Re:They have a point

[Anonymous Coward]

And now I read this nonsense about Michigan and other states giving exclusive monopolies to Comcast and other megacorps. Unbelievable.

Remember, this is something that happened 25 years ago! It's good that you're getting pissed off about it, but it's long overdue. Those of us who were saying things about this for years were labeled "paranoid" and "anti-corporation". Now that there's a populist wave of anti-establishment sentiment going around, it's the cool thing to do.

Re:They have a point

[elrous0]

When did the nobility EVER serve the people? The Golden Rule ("He who has the gold makes the rules") is one of the oldest axioms of politics.

Re:They have a point

[afidel]

Actually, they aren't exclusive franchises they are statewide franchises which takes all control out of the hands of the local municipality. Basically the megacorps were finding too expensive/inconvenient to lobby and bribe^h^h contribute to campaign funds for local officials in each municipality so they just applied their money at the state level and made the problem easier to manage. Of course that works against the public interest in a number of ways not least of which is removing clauses like the ones that Detroit is complaining about that were in their 1985 franchise agreement or the cable modem requirement I mentioned previously.

Re:They have a point

[MBGMorden]

For digital television 2-6 are worthless (as people trying to watch WPVI6 can attest). And channels 14-20(?) are reserved for land mobile. So what's really left is 7-13 and 21-31 - simply not enough room for all the networks,

Geez. How many broadcast networks do you guys get? Even throwing out the 2-6 you mentioned (though my channels in that range work fine), 7-13 and 21-31 is still 18 channels. I'm on the east coast we get ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CW, and WB - I didn't even think there were really any more networks besides those that did OTA broadcasts :S. Learn something new everyday I guess.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

>>>they aren't exclusive franchises they are statewide franchises

If the franchise agreement Comcast signs with the member state (Michigan, France, or whoever) gives them sole control over cable TV across that whole area, how is that not "exclusive"?

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

>>>When did the nobility EVER serve the people?

Yes well, this is why the idea of Constitutional government was invented in the 1600s - to shackle the nobility and only allow them to exercise a FEW limited powers. All other powers would be reserved to the People (where all legitimate authority lies):

The People (top)
|
Member State Constitution (a few limited powers)
|
Member State Government (shackled by the constitution)
|
US Constitution (a few limited powers)
|
US Government (bottom)

Re:They have a point

[elrous0]

Yeah, except it NEVER worked that way in practice. The founding fathers of the U.S. put in safeguards to protect their own interests (*representative* democracy instead of direct, the electoral college, etc.) and ensure that the rabble could only send their betters to represent them. And their "betters" have been taking bribes and abusing their power ever since.

Re:They have a point

[blackraven14250]

I think he means they're not municipal-level franchises.

Re:They have a point

[afidel]

It doesn't give them an exclusive franchise, at least the one in Ohio doesn't. Verizon and AT&T both got statewide franchises and are able to offer video services in any area they have a footprint regardless of any existing franchise agreement for exclusive video rights.

Re:They have a point

[Jeff DeMaagd]

TV channels are easier to tune well with at least one "open" channel between transmitted channels.

As for the channels in question, I think you'll find maybe the digital channels may say they're in the 3-6 range, in reality, they aren't necessarily using the analog equivalent of that channel. My local channel "3" is actually assigned to digital channel 8, they keep the callsign and the number.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

>>>7-13 and 21-31 is still 18 channels

You forget that broadcast TV extends across a 200 mile radius. In that context 18 channels is not a lot. For example Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Baltimore, and Washington DC are all part of the same region, and they must all share those channels in such a way that they don't overlap. So really it's just 4-5 channels each, and that's not enough to carry all the networks.

>>>How many broadcast networks do you guys get?

ABC
CBS
FOX
NBC
CW
PBS
PBSarts
PBSworld
PBSkids
MyNetTV
Univision
Telefutura
TBN
ION
Wellness Channel
thisTV movie channel
Retro Network
Global (foreign language shows/movies)
Link (foreign news)
MiND (mostly educational)
JCTV
Smile-of-a-Child Network
Qubo
IONlife

plus 9 independents showing syndicated shows (Rome, Star Trek, Deadliest Catch, etc) and movies

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

Democracy is a Tyranny of the majority (2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what to have for dinner - goodbye sheep). Of course the Founders didn't want that. They remembered what happened to Socrates when the Athenian Democracy voted to kill him, simply because they didn't like his public speeches.

Instead they wanted to create Rule by Law, which would protect the individual from being crushed by the majority. The Law (constitution) obliges the Nobility to behave itself by limiting their power to just a few express items. It's a Republic not a democracy.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

And what if AppleTV comes along and wants to offer Fiber-based video & internet to Ohio residents? Are the blocked from entering?

Re:They have a point

[tweak13]

And channels 14-20(?) are reserved for land mobile.

Nope. There's a broadcast station near me that had analog on 17 and digital on 16. Analog is of course now gone, but the digital channel hasn't moved from it's assignment. Where my parents live there's a digital channel on 15. And yes, those are all really the channel assignments, not just keeping the old branding.

A quick search suggests that those land mobile assignments apply only to a list of 13 metropolitan areas. I don't get why the FCC hasn't given those guys the boot and let broadcasters take those frequencies. Those frequencies are just part of the Business Radio Pool, and there's plenty of other frequencies available, even in the 400MHz range. Hell, in recent history they've forced relocations for services far more important than that.

Re:They have a point

[tweak13]

A quick FCC search shows that the station he refers to is in fact transmitting on channel 6. Having a local station that is also in the VHF-Lo band, I can attest to how utterly worthless it is for digital.

Re:They have a point

[Lumpy]

And now I read this nonsense about Michigan and other states giving exclusive monopolies to Comcast and other megacorps. Unbelievable.

This has went on for decades. When CableTV started in the 70's it was done to make community TV setups illegal.

WE had a Community TV when I grew up. the neighborhood had a single 200 foot tower with a gob of antennas and the whole neighborhood was wired with coax. it worked great. we paid $50.00 a year for it and got over 13 channels clear as day.

TCI cable came into town and after they got set up they signed a franchise contract with the city. The city then deemed our community TV system a business and forced it to either be torn down or pay $50,000 a year to the city for a franchise fee.

Thus making it illegal by making the cost excessive.

Re:They have a point

[Lumpy]

No it did not. you never learned US history did you.

The Us revolution was to make a bunch of rich guys here no longer pay taxes back to GB. Nothing more.

It was not about freedom, it was not about anything but greed and power.

Re:They have a point

[Anonymous Coward]

The founding fathers of the U.S. put in safeguards to protect their own interests (*representative* democracy instead of direct, the electoral college, etc.) and ensure that the rabble could only send their betters to represent them. And their "betters" have been taking bribes and abusing their power ever since.

Representative democracy was the better way to do things compared to direct democracy _at that time_.
It was very hard for most people to travel any real distance so using representatives meant that people only needed to travel to vote on occasion as their elected representatives would be acting in their interests.
Now it's easier to travel so that part isn't so important.
Now the concern would be that people would need to be more informed and more actively involved. It would take a lot of time for people to keep up to date, especially with the legalese used in the wording of bills and laws. Still much more of an option now than it was at the time of the governments founding.

Re:They have a point

[russotto]

THESE statewide-granted monopolies and the recent (yesterday) decision to eliminate channels 31 to 51 on broadcast television is telling me that the Nobility are no longer serving the People.

The decision to eliminate 31-51 isn't a done deal. It'll take an act of Congress, and there's a whole lot of folks who screamed enough about the original digital transition to delay it for another six months even at the bitter end when even the broadcasters weren't on their side.

Re:They have a point

[spire3661]

The electoral college was not designed to be self serving in the way you imply. IT was designed to help keep 'the whims of the crowd' in check. Its a moderation device to defend against the tyranny of the masses. When I was younger I railed at the electoral college too, until I matured and realized that the masses cannot always be trusted. Never forget, first and foremost we live in a REPUBLIC. The will of the people will always be tempered with the inalienable rights of the republic. Unchecked democracy is as extreme a system of governance as anarchy.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

>>>It was not about freedom, it was not about anything but greed and power.

I see the Government Monopoly school system has brainwashed you very effectively, in order to make you reject freedom and more trusting of government control of your life. There are all kinds of things wrong with your statement, but I'll just pick one:

The US Founders were not rich.

Ben Franklin was but all the rest were poor and deep, deep into debt (kinda like us today). They were commoners who rose to the level of politicians, but they still remained poor in their personal lives. Hell when Thomas Jefferson died (July 4, 1826) his estate was immediately partitioned by the British bankers, because he owed them the equivalent of $200,000. His slaves were sold-off, his possessions confiscated, and there was nothing left for his children to inherit.

That story was true for virtually all of the Founders. They didn't do it for wealth - they didn't have any. They did it because they were tired of UK police entering their homes for warrantless searches (to enforce the Stamp Act), tired of soldiers stripping their farms for food, tired of government-granted Monopolies that took-away freedom of choice, and tired of regulations that stole what little income they earned as fishermen, traders, doctors, and so on.

Re:They have a point

[HoppQ]

So, they chose Tyranny of the minority?

Re:They have a point

[David_W]

But how many of those are sub-channels on the same frequency?

(Not to imply that will suddenly give plenty of channels to use, but let's put the list in proper context.)

Re:They have a point

[shutdown -p now]

Instead they wanted to create Rule by Law, which would protect the individual from being crushed by the majority. The Law (constitution) obliges the Nobility to behave itself by limiting their power to just a few express items.

Yeah, and nobility effectively gets to stay in charge, even though with limited power. Which is precisely what GP was talking about.

If direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep (which is a story told by the wolves, by the way, because in practice it's usually two sheep and a wolf), then republic is one wolf representing two sheep and deciding on what to have for dinner - for public good, of course.

Re:They have a point

[Steauengeglase]

I think the word you are looking for is meritocracy. Not a bad idea in motive, but it doesn't fulfill the political needs of a society. It would last about a long as it takes a man with a gun to gather a crowd and shout: Those pointy heads think they are smarter than you!

Re:They have a point

[DrgnDancer]

Actually you're both right. The Structure of the US government was designed partially to protect from a Tyranny of the Majority, and partly to protect the interest of the propertied classes. It's a Red Herring to suggest that a pure unlimited democracy would have served the country better, but it's equally fallacious to ignore the clear bent toward protecting property rights and the privileges of the upper class in our government's design. Having said that, a great deal of the most blatant upper class bias has been removed from the government over the years. Property, race, and sex restrictions have been removed from voting requirements, Senators are now directly elected, etc. The original design was much more upper class biased. The Electoral College is really the last relic of the old "safeguards".

Re:They have a point

[modecx]

The founding fathers of the U.S. put in safeguards to protect their own interests (*representative* democracy instead of direct, the electoral college, etc.)

You're kidding, right? The electoral college, and Representative Democracy (which we call a Republic) is a practical solution to a problem which was a big deal back then. When our country first formed from the 13 colonies, it was bigger in land mass than a few of the largest European countries put together--and the people were much more spread out.

A direct democracy over such distances and comprising such a vast number of people is simply impractical, if not impossible. This is compounded by the growth and formation of new states, and an ever westward moving frontier.

On the other hand, the inventors of democracy struggle to make it work on a consistent basis, no less on an country the size of New York state. Having a representative democracy helps to protect the minority from the majority--and it also keeps the undereducated peons from simply voting in more and more socialist benefits for themselves.

Simply put: Our country would be royally fucked if we had direct democracy.

Re:They have a point

[Chris Burke]

It's a Republic not a democracy.

[pet peeve]

We're a Representative Democracy, not a Direct Democracy.

Republic means the head of government is not a monarch. It is orthogonal to Democracy. England is not a Republic, but it is a Representative Democracy.

China is a Republic, but it is not a Democracy of any kind.

[/pet peeve]

You're absolutely right in every other sense, though.

Re:They have a point

[witherstaff]

Agreements that were actually lived up to? Wow, that's a shock. Usually the telcos promise everything and deliver nothing. 300 billion worth of lies according to the last thing I saw

Re:They have a point

[Anonymous Coward]

To me these items: electoral college and congress, were only created as logistical tools.

Having nothing akin to the internet, getting an entire nation to vote on an issue would be impractical and would disenfranchise those geographically furthest from the capitol (good luck getting in to vote). The electoral college was put into place to allow the states to choose the president, since the US was never intended to be a strong central government, but a loose confederacy of states (similar to what the EU is now). This changed with Abe Lincoln and the Civil War, should be interesting to see when/how this changes with the EU.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

Close.

The US founders actually chose Tyranny of the individual (a minority of one), where each person is a tyrant over exactly ONE person - himself. That's how you achieve maximum freedom. Each person has the right to do whatever he wants to himself and with his own life, so long as he does not physically harm another's body or property, or rights.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

Well you have to have some kind of leadership, else there would be anarchy (no leadership; no government). Are you implying you want to eliminate the nobility/leadership and have anarchy instead? I suppose that would be one way to achieve maximum individual liberty..... until someone comes along and kills you (since there would be no laws to outlaw murder).

>>>then republic is one wolf representing two sheep and deciding on what to have for dinner - for public good, of course.

I can not lay my hand on any part of the US or State Constitution which gives the wolf that power. Can you? No. That power is therefore reserved to the People - the leaders/representatives have no say in the matter.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

>>>England is not a Republic, but it is a Representative Democracy

And that is precisely what's wrong with England. There's no Supreme Law to stop the Parliament from passing any law they wish, including rounding-up undesirables and sticking them in concentration camps.

In the US we have a Constitution which forbids such acts. In England parliamentarians are above the law. In the US (and other republics) they are below the law. They are restrained/limited while the Law remains supreme

Re:They have a point

[shutdown -p now]

Well you have to have some kind of leadership, else there would be anarchy (no leadership; no government). Are you implying you want to eliminate the nobility/leadership and have anarchy instead?

I do want to eliminate nobility - which does not imply anarchy - and I do want to have leaders that are limited in their functions as much as possible, and directly responsible to the people. If you want a model that I believe to be close to perfection, it would be council democracy as practiced by the Soviets early on (excepting their class restrictions, of course).

The obvious problem with mainstream representative democracy is that it breeds nobility. We no longer have explicit succession for positions of power, but if you look at people who occupy them, more often then not they come out of families, most members of which have held such positions before - so the succession is still there. And that has no place in a true democracy.

I can not lay my hand on any part of the US or State Constitution which gives the wolf that power. Can you?

US Constitution is like Bible - interpreted differently by different people and on different occasions. Apparently, slavery was perfectly constitutional (or at least most people in US, including SCOTUS judges, believed so at the time), and so were Jim Crow laws.

Re:They have a point

[Chris Burke]

And that is precisely what's wrong with England. There's no Supreme Law to stop the Parliament from passing any law they wish, including rounding-up undesirables and sticking them in concentration camps.

I agree, but technically having a constitution is another aspect of government that is orthogonal to the Republic/Monarchy distinction. Not all Republics have constitutions. The UK is called a Constitutional Monarchy because it does have a constitution, just an "uncodified" one, meaning it's not written down in one place but is just a collection of case law and treaties and so forth. It's definitely not a Constitution in the sense we're talking about, which is in the sense of a Supreme Law.

Re:They have a point

[pdabbadabba]

I've never visited the home of a poor person from the early nineteenth century but I'm pretty sure it would not much resemble Monticello.

Re:They have a point

[afidel]

Nope, though physical access to the poles is a different animal from a video franchise.

Re:They have a point

[vertinox]

That story was true for virtually all of the Founders.

What? What?

In the 1700's if you owned more than one slave you were considered wealthy by the people of the time.

Frankly, I'm not sure why people modded you informative other than the last part.

But the truth of the matter is that American merchants did agitate the revolution in the beginning and the UK responded in most likely the worst possible way by warrentless searches, soldier quartering, etc etc in which the founding fathers objected too.

In that regard, I do believe Thomas Jefferson would have no liked the idea of state monopolies we have have with comcast, as it does seem a bit like the British East India company.

Re:They have a point

[mabhatter654]

They are not "state wide franchises" at all, the law merely allows "video service" to piggy back on other types of franchises.. like telephone. The thing barring ATT from offering video over their DSL was that they would have had to renegotiate "video rights" for all the already laid copper and fiber used for phone service. It was a chicken-egg problem to bring phone/data and TV/data right-of-way licensing into alignment... the state underestimated the greed and wiliness of the cable companies and ATT.

Essentially the law sets time tables for how quickly a locality MUST sign a contract, or the law make a "reasonable" contract approved by default. The problem is that the law was written to compliment ATT which already has extensive rules for how an where they run phones, those provisions are mostly handled at the FCC level and are uniform for everybody now, so the state didn't include them. The cable companies are using "forced renegotiation" as a tool to get anything they wanted as long as it was "reasonable". They instantly handed all the localities new contracts with slashed services, started the clock and used the state law to make the contracts legal.

Most importantly though, the STATE didn't negotiate ANYTHING with the cable companies, there is no "exclusive contract" other than allowing video to piggyback on other types of contracts, like phone service.

Re:They have a point

[mabhatter654]

not in Michigan... THAT is what the law changed. Essentially it made telephone and cable right-of-way negotiation the same thing. The problem is it established no minimum baseline for what "video" service was an no quality of service that localities could demand. Anybody can negotiate an exclusive or non-exclusive agreement now, and they essentially can't deny you starting work unless they have some exclusive agreement with somebody else.. the localities have to grant you the right of way. The problem is that "public service" parts of telephone are all at the FCC level, so states don't write their own coverage, or minimum service rules.. and they didn't include them for "video" service in the law. This is the very core of the "network neutrality" debate because one law combine with the FCC rulings essentially makes owning "video" infrastructure under nearly zero "public service" standards like phone service has to cover schools, governments, provide basic services at a reasonable price, etc, etc. This is why even ATT wants the push to U-Verse because the "service" is a "video" service and the "phone" is claiming "fair use" under the telco rules. but the LINES are under the "video" rules which have barely any FCC regulation.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

>>>I've never visited the home of a poor person from the early nineteenth century but I'm pretty sure it would not much resemble Monticello

You confuse the APPEARANCE of wealth with actual wealth. I've met lots of people who had Lexuses and huge homes, but they were actually poor (deep deep in debt). They were okay so long as they had a job, but when that job disappeared so too did the artificial appearance. They became homeless.

Jefferson was one of those types - the appearance of wealth, but in reality a poor man (as was his father before him). It was only his status that stopped the bankers from kicking him out of his home, but it eventually caught-up with him, and he died destitute. His children inherited nothing.

Anyway: The point is - the US Founders were not wealthy. That's a myth.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

>>>In the 1700's if you owned more than one slave you were considered wealthy

But if you are $200,000 in debt you don't really "own" anything do you? Just as you don't own your car or your house - the bank owns it. Jefferson didn't own slaves - he merely leased them. The slaves were owned by the bank(s), and the bank reclaimed them as soon as Jefferson died. His children inherited nothing because Jefferson owned nothing. He had the appearance of wealth but in reality he was a poor man.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

It's about 25 actual stations. If channels 31 and up are eliminated, leaving behind only 18 usable slots, those stations will have to combine with others. Like CBS with CW, FOX with MyNetTV, NBC with ABC, and so on. CBS would be on channel 13-1 while CW is on 13-2. FOX on channel 17-1 and MNT on 17-2. Et cetera.

So virtually all the subchannel networks I listed would disappear forever due to lack of space. No more movie channel (which I enjoy) or 24-hour news channel (ditto) or RetroTV or Qubo or Universal Sports or _____ (fill in the blank). All gone.

Re:They have a point

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>And channels 14-20(?) are reserved for land mobile.
>>
>>Nope

Yep. I live in one of those zones that can't use 14-20. So my original post stands correct, given the context I was using (the Washington-Harrisburg-Philadelphia region).
.

>>>I don't get why the FCC hasn't given those guys the boot

Because they are used for emergency services. Of course the FCC could reassign them to the freed-up 52 to 69 spectrum but that would take a couple years.

Re:They have a point

[pdabbadabba]

Well, I certainly don't dispute that Jefferson's debts exceeded his assets. You sound like you know much more about this than I do. And, reading back through this thread a bit, I agree with your underlying point that the US revolution was not [just] about the rich trying to wriggle out of paying taxes.

But I do think it's misleading to say that Jefferson was poor. Poverty is not just about totaling up your debts and assets and getting a small number, it's about your material comforts and social enfranchisement as well. That Jefferson carried a negative balance does not, it seems to me, outweigh the fact that he owned an estate, slaves, vineyards, mills, founded a major university, and was (of course) the President of the U.S. In the final analysis, the man was clearly a have, not a have not. Contrast Jefferson's life to, say, that of a mill worker at the time or, even better, one of his slaves.

I hear Donald Trump has filed for bankruptcy repeatedly. Does that mean he's poor too?

I don't say all this to attack Jefferson. I think he was a great man. In fact, I'm a graduate of his university. I just think that to say Jefferson was poor really misses most of what is meant by the word "poor."

And it seems like the orignal point goes to whether Jefferson would have had a lot of reason to resist high taxes. Certainly Jefferson's net assets don't have much to do with this question. The relevant questions, rather, are to what extent was he engaged in commerce (particularly overseas), how many assets did he have, and how large was his income stream? And the answers to all these questions paint a picture of someone with a LOT of potential tax liabilities. (Again, think of Donald Trump. He is notorious for carrying a lot of debt, and has filed for bankruptcy repeatedly. Does this mean he doesn't care about taxes?)

But, again, I agree with your underlying point that the revolution was not fought just to keep the rich from having to pay taxes to the British. I don't think anyone who knows much about Jefferson, regardless of what they think about his personal tax liabilities, would take seriously the idea that he was really only concerned about taxes.

Only game in town and ...

[AHuxley]

" ceased making payments to support local public and educational programming, and closed local public and educational video studios and ceased providing mobile units, equipment, staff and maintenance"
They still cant do the isp/telco basics. Did the feds also hand out tax breaks for the above too?
Could be time to roll and dig your own, see if a little community organizing gets dark fiber found and schools supported.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[commodore64_love]

Or even better:

Have the city of Detroit run 100-fiber bundles under all the streets, and then offer to lease 1 fiber per television or internet company. Just imagine: Customers would be able to choose from Comcast or Cox or AppleTV or Time-Warner or Cablevision or whatever. True competition. True choice.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Detroit can't even keep it's streets in good repair. What makes you think they'll dig them up and completely replace them?

Re:Only game in town and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have the city of Detroit run 100-fiber bundles under all the streets, and then offer to lease 1 fiber per television or internet company. Just imagine: Customers would be able to choose from Comcast or Cox or AppleTV or Time-Warner or Cablevision or whatever. True competition. True choice.

Without federal assistance, the city of Detroit can't afford to buy 100 strings and pairs of cans at this point. They aren't even processing rape kits because the city is too far in debt. Sure the former mayor is in prison now, but the whole city is still screwed.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[Attila Dimedici]

How about we just get rid of these government granted monopolies (franchise agreements) and let whoever wants to and can get right of way permits provide cable service? Then we could maybe find out if the free market could fix the problems we have with cable tv and high speed internet service. As a bonus, we would also find out if all those people who keep talking about "natural" monopolies are right or not.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[archangel9]

my brother in law is a Civil Engineer for the City of Detroit, and considering they only get 8-9 good months of project work in per year (read: frozen ground, too much snow) rolling out new fiber to Detroit would probably take far longer than it is worth. He has had a Water Main project to reroute supply near 17-18-19 mile, and it has taken the better part of three years.

What about towers and point-to-point wireless?

Re:Only game in town and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it sounds like there would be no better time to dig up the streets than now, then. I mean, you had to dig up a new, beautiful street.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[PublicBore]

I am interested in right of way permits. Please tell me more.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[commodore64_love]

Why would you need to dig-up anything? A 100-fiber or 50-fiber bundle would fit through the existing underground pipes. For example Verizon didn't have to dig anything when they upgraded my coworker from DSL to FiOS.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which unfortunately costs money, and takes time. As someone else pointed out, there is only 8 or 9 months out of the year that any construction can be done, and we all know Detroit's financial situation...

Re:Only game in town and ...

[Rockoon]

How about we just get rid of these government granted monopolies (franchise agreements) and let whoever wants to and can get right of way permits provide cable service?

It isnt just the permits. Literally everyone (aka current and future competition) can cost the project time/money with lawsuits, which is why towns and especially cities often go with the force-of-law franchise method. Otherwise it seems to never get done.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[commodore64_love]

>>>What about towers and point-to-point wireless?

Yeah because the wireless spectrum is limitless. Plenty of room for growth. /end sarcasm. Wired service is better and there's no limit to how many spectrums you can have (1 whole spectrum per cable).

Re:Only game in town and ...

[archangel9]

Wired service is better and there's no limit to how many spectrums you can have (1 whole spectrum per cable).

+1 obvious.

you're confusing usability with availability. P2P wireless may be slow/restricted, but it would take 2 years to get fiber to a series of schools, therefore slow/limited beats non-available every time.

isn't .gov working to expand wireless ranges available anyway, or is that just for mobile?(real question)

Re:Only game in town and ...

[commodore64_love]

Detroit could hire someone, like Google, to do the job for them. In exchange google would administer the leasing of the 100-fiber network to other companies over the next ten years. It would be a government-regulated private corporation, and then Detroit would take over that corporation in 2021.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[Attila Dimedici]

There are two ways to run wire or pipes. Method one is to go to the property owners over whose land you wish to run the pipe and negotiate a right of way to allow you to run your wire or pipe over/under their land. The other is to go to a local or state government and get them to use eminent domain to obtain the right of way for you.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[powerlord]

Perhaps the good city of Detroit could just outsource the city government to some well meaning Corporation?

I'm sure I've seen some thoughts on this somewhere ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093870/ ).

Re:Only game in town and ...

[michael_cain]

Detroit is b-r-o-k-e, broke.

They sold their water and sewer system to a neighboring county because they couldn't afford to operate it. There is consideration being given to filing Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The mayor has seriously proposed bulldozing a quarter of the city. Detroit can't afford to build anything. And, IMO, a company would be nuts to put any significant money into infrastructure in that environment.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[PublicBore]

Some people might believe that invoking a great power can embue them an ability to take ownership of what isn't theirs. But only within that power's domain of providence will they not be seen as thieves. And great powers also exist among one another; And great powers also, at times, make invokations.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[commodore64_love]

Detroit sounds like Rome circa 450 AD. The city of Rome had depopulated from 2 million to just 100,000 and was literally falling apart due to lack of funds.
.

>>>a company would be nuts to put any significant money into infrastructure in that environment.

Even in its decrepit condition Detroit is still bigger than the city where I live, and companies have installed both Cable TV and DSL here. So I think Central Detroit could still be a worthwhile investment for a Google or other company.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[commodore64_love]

Like when a Mall Developer goes to government, bribes politicians to take people's homes, smash the homes to rubble, and then the developer builds that new shopping center. Yeah. Eminent domain is grrrrreeeeaaaat.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[commodore64_love]

But if the schools are already wired (phones, cable) then it's easy. Just upgrade the wires to DSL and Cable internet. It's faster and cheaper.

Besides wireless isn't really a free market either. It's not a solution like the 100-fiber bundle I had proposed that provides Real choice (between 100 different wired internet/tv providers).

Re:Only game in town and ...

[Jedi Alec]

There are two ways to run wire or pipes. Method one is to go to the property owners over whose land you wish to run the pipe and negotiate a right of way to allow you to run your wire or pipe over/under their land. The other is to go to a local or state government and get them to use eminent domain to obtain the right of way for you.

If you're going to use eminent domain anyway, who not go with a proven formula and separate the hardware from the information that flows over it?

Force the franchise holder to lease the lines at pre-established prices so that anyone who wants to set up a competing service can do so. It works. It's been done.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[DrgnDancer]

The popular conception (and whether it's accurate or not I don't claim to know, but it's certainly an arguable view point) is that without the carrot of a monopoly in front of them, most companies won't risk the investment in the hardware. Especially to more remote or poorer areas. It costs a lot of money (and takes a lot of time) to do this kind of thing. I'll give you a medium scale example.

In 2003, the city of Lafayette, LA was getting a bit miffed about its communications infrastructure. Cox Cable was the monopoly cable provider, and Bell South was the monopoly phone provider. Neither seemed interested in doing the infrastructure upgrades that the city government wanted to see to turn Lafayette in the cutting edge community they wanted to be. The Parish (counties in Louisiana are called parishes, fun fact) decided to take matters into its own hands. Unlike a lot of medium sized communities, Lafayette continues to own and operate its own utility company. LUS provides power, sewerage, water and trash pickup to every house in the city proper and at a minimum power to every house in the parish. Lafayette decided that it would soon provide fiber optic based communications services to every home in the parish too (or at least, every home would have a hook-up and the option of using LUS instead of either Cox, Bell or both).

When I left Lafayette in 2007 the project was well under way, and the first fiber was expected to light up in 2008. It had taken most of 5 years from inception to the first real hookups, and the cost had run to at least 30 million dollars. It may have been more when all was said and done. The city confidently expects to make the money back in 5 years (I expect they're right, everyone was really excited about the whole thing while I lived there. Unless the roll out was completely FUBAR, I expect it's a popular offering). In the current "Quarterly profit numbers are my Holy Scripture" environment, how many companies do you think will risk 3-5 years of build up and another 3-5 years to profitability without some sort of guarantees?

Re:Only game in town and ...

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually that is a slightly different use of eminent domain. One that (while the Supreme Court disagreed) I believe is a violation of what the Founders intended. In the case of eminent domain for right of way to run wires or pipes, the right of way does not take away the property owner's ability to make use of the property. Not that even here is this a power that we should support the government using lightly (as it does much too often).

Re:Only game in town and ...

[archangel9]

Considering the size of schools, wireless and DSL/cable would have bandwidth issues anyway. Even if it was a 30Mb cable modem, 75-100 active connections will probably saturate it. Even with a multi-WAN setup and vlan separation... but I digress. They hosed themselves when they didn't toss fiber in the pipes to begin with.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[Attila Dimedici]

In the current "Quarterly profit numbers are my Holy Scripture" environment, how many companies do you think will risk 3-5 years of build up and another 3-5 years to profitability without some sort of guarantees?

I have NO idea and nobody else does either because the government bought into that idea years ago and never gave us a chance to find out. My suspicion is that where I live (in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area) I would have 5 or 6 choices. In areas where population density is much lower, I suspect that areas that do not currently have high speed Internet connection wouldn't see if it for a very long time, but then I don't expect they will get it for a very long time under current conditions either.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[JWSmythe]

    In a lot of places, the right of way is already laid out. If you're in a newer community (say 1970-ish on), it's the space between the sidewalk and the road. It's shown on your property map. You have to mow it. You can't plant bushes on it, and if the city/county/state or some utility decides to dig it up, you can't say anything about it.

    If you wanted to use that land to run your own utility cable of some sort (say running copper or fiber between your house and a house a few doors down), it won't happen. Even if the local government said "yes" (good luck there), you'd have the utility companies stopping you in no time, and you'd be tied up in court for years.

    Several years ago, I was renting a house. The city decided to tear up the nice trees along the road, and plant seedlings. Of course, that was tear up the old trees, and 3 months later put new ones in. I didn't know there were sprinklers in the right of way, and when they tore out the old tree, they ripped out part of the sprinkler line. I capped off the line several feet from where they broke it. A few months later when they put the new tree in, again they ripped out the sprinkler line in a new place. {sigh}

    I complained to the city both times. Their opinion was, "That's your problem, we own the road."

    I've seen it where the city/county/state decides that they want more easement. They declared the easement 15' farther in than it was. Then they'd complain because your fence is on their property. They didn't care that the fence had been there for 20 years before that.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[JWSmythe]

    I know of a school district with 292 schools (population for the county is 1.9 million). They contract to a single company for Internet service. While some schools have physical lines run to them, the majority use wireless P2P service.

    P2P is actually pretty good with the right equipment. With high gain narrow beam antennas, interference is minimal, since you have to be within the beam to hear it. That works great for fixed points (like tower to building). Everyone assumes wireless is like their crappy consumer grade access point, with omnidirectional antennas. You can get competitive speeds with wireless, and it can be set up in a day, rather than waiting for lines to be run.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[AK Marc]

Yes, but when they wanted to show a run-down Detroit, they used Dallas. I took a class in the high school they used as the police station, and I've been in the Dallas City Hall (the OCP headquarters) multiple times. So a run-down and crappy Detroit of the future was mid-80's Dallas.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[Attila Dimedici]

The reason that municipalities went with the force of law franchise method was because it allowed them to extort money from would be cable providers. I remember when several of the local municipal governing bodies were caught extorting personal benefits from cable providers to keep their local monopoly.
It would have been better if they had never legislated the cable monopolies, but it is too late to change that. The question is, now that we're here, how do we fix it? Personally, I never favor giving more power to organizations that screwed things up by the misuse of their power in the first place.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[mabhatter654]

dozing makes a lot of sense. I know in my town our local hospital makes a grab on the next door neighborhoods, grabbing a whole block at a time. They doze it all, and turn it to grass. Then when they need parking or an office, they build a shiny new one. In the meantime, the old, unkept houses are wiped away and we get to enjoy manicured empty space for 3-4 years. There are two things to manage here, first businesses want empty property to build on, they don't want to clean up old houses or factories when they can buy a nicely cleared corn field for one tenth and make people drive. Second, the business districts in places like Detroit or Lansing are scattered all over. One or two strong business support an otherwise rundown block. There's parts of town where streets, water, electric, telephone are servicing one house out of four because they are foreclosed and rundown.

Honestly, they need "city shrinkage" planning. I've seen what they did with the Cleveland University hospital and business district... they wiped a strip from the center of town to the hospital and then repopulated it with mass transit and new businesses. It's still a shrinking city, but its core is rebuilt to pull people closer rather than continually running to the suburbs. I was impressed that the city and university were connected to the airport by mass transit, from out-state Michigan that was pretty cool.

Re:Only game in town and ...

[powerlord]

Yes, but when they wanted to show a run-down Detroit, they used Dallas. I took a class in the high school they used as the police station, and I've been in the Dallas City Hall (the OCP headquarters) multiple times. So a run-down and crappy Detroit of the future was mid-80's Dallas.

So Dallas was Progressive and Leading the Curve? :)

Comcast Victims

[Kylere]

I think it is too early for the Comcast victims in Michigan to rejoice, they purchased one set of politicians years ago and it is clear that the bribes have worn off. New Bribes in 3...2...

Re:Comcast Victims

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the 'bribes' wore off they didnt bother with them in the first place. They have a state wide franchise now so why bother with small fry local govs.

Looks like that gov just want what was agreed to under the 1985 contract. Instead comcast is saying some other law supersedes that and they do not have to provide what they said they would under the contract.

Just because there is new law that gives you other rights does not automatically abridge your rights under other contracts. For example federal law may have things that say what you do safety wise at work. Your workplace is free to enact even more strict guidelines as a condition of employment. This sort of thing happens all the time.

It sounds like 'negotiations' broke down and Detroit whipped out the nuclear option. That is more to bring comcast back to the table with a 'lets be reasonable about this'.

Re:Comcast Victims

[luther349]

comcast has been running wiled sense excite@home died. and now the state its self is felling the rape the avg customer gets. but i don't see the point in the lawsuit. if you wanna hurt comcast terminate thee state wide monopoly. let the competition move in and destroy them with cheaper cable. all they will do is settle bribe a few more people and nothing will change,

It's not "bribes" it's "free speech"!

[Benfea]

At least according to our US Supreme Court.

Re:It's not "bribes" it's "free speech"!

[commodore64_love]

The Supreme Court made the mistake of thinking Corporations have the same rights as human beings. They don't. The people inside the corporation have rights, but the actual corporation has no more natural, innate rights than a tree or rock.

Re:It's not "bribes" it's "free speech"!

[TheSpoom]

In the United States, legally, you're wrong, and have been for many years.

Re:It's not "bribes" it's "free speech"!

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the United States, legally, you're wrong, and have been for many years."

Indeed. Thanks to, as pointed out, the Supreme Court mistakingly treating Corporations as human beings. Just because it's been legalized doesn't mean it's been made a correct way of thinking.

Bad laws and judgements happen all the time, even (and some would say "most notoriously"), in the US.

Re:It's not "bribes" it's "free speech"!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court made the mistake of thinking Corporations have the same rights as human beings. They don't. The people inside the corporation have rights, but the actual corporation has no more natural, innate rights than a tree or rock.

But... there are no people inside trees or rocks.

Re:It's not "bribes" it's "free speech"!

[martyros]

The people inside the corporation have rights, but the actual corporation has no more natural, innate rights than a tree or rock.

I wouldn't mind corporations being "people" if they were like people in other ways. Imagine if when the corporation was convicted of a crime, every person in it (or at least all the stockholders) could be thrown in jail. Part of the breakdown of the whole system is that there's way too much distance between people who own a publicly-traded company and the effects their actions produce. You'd better believe that if stockholders were criminally liable for actions the company took, that "maximize shareholder value" would become 2nd priority to "avoid putting the shareholders in jail.".

Re:It's not "bribes" it's "free speech"!

[Anonymous Coward]

The people inside the corporation have rights, but the actual corporation has no more natural, innate rights than a tree or rock.

Corporations should not have as many rights as a tree, but I OK with giving them the rights of a rock.

Mayor McBride, is that you?

[Gothmolly]

So Detroit is taking the SCOX route?

Agreement...

[rrayst]

...about what?

free drops and service to municipal school buildin

[Joe The Dragon]

free drops and service to municipal school buildings. Can comcast still do that and bill them up the ass for boxes? Fine free drops and $8 /m per room for the box.

per box / outlet fee is about $8 now $16 HD dvr

[Joe The Dragon]

per box / outlet fee is about $8 now and $16 HD dvr per box. MRV $20 /m for the main box.

I think soon all cable card users will also have to pay comcasts new HD fee as well but only 1 time per home and cable uses may also pay the outlet fee makeing card rent + outlet cost about the same as renting a box but less then renting a HD DVR.

it's comcastic!

[Joe The Dragon]

it's comcastic!

We are the cable co if you don't like this then get a dish!

Ha, a bad interpertation by Detroit

[scorp1us]

The United States Constitution is the charter for the federal government. It creates an entity known as the "United States". In numerous statutes, the "United States" is confined to federal possessions: D.C. and its territories. There is also no such thing as federal "common law". The Constitution governs itself, interstate commerce (see "commerce clause") international trade, wars, etc, state's limitations. It does NOT create a parent government. It creates a government that only operates under certain conditions, namely interstate commerce (The FDA, FCC, FTC, SEC, etc, all are created under the commerce clause) Additionally and originally, the bill of rights was used to supply rights to citizens fo the federal government. But after the civil war, the 10th and 14th amendments brought everyone under the protection of the constitution. That was validated yesterday in the McDonald case...

Here, Detroit is saying that intrAstate commerce (the state franchise is illegal) because of federal law. That is preposterous, The federal government does not have jurisdiction. If you claim it does, then that is an educated reading of Article IV Section 2.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. "

What they fail to mention is the 10th Amendment. The Detroit interpretation is ignoring the fact that unless there is an enabling statute, the federal law is void. It would make the 10th amendment at odds with the article, and void both provisions. It would be impossible to reserve any power to the states if federal law trumps state law. We've avoided this so far by having the federal only govern international and interstate commerce.

Re:Ha, a bad interpertation by Detroit

[Anonymous Coward]

You're looking at the wrong constitution.

Like the United States of America, each of the member States also has a constitution.

Re:Ha, a bad interpertation by Detroit

[CheshireCatCO]

Read the article more carefully. They're saying that the state's constitution specifically delegates selection of franchises to the municipalities, yet the state also awarded a franchise to Comcast, overriding Detroit's existing franchise with the same. The article clearly cites chapter and verse of the Michigan constitution that's relevant here, so it's hard to see what the state thought it was doing.

The US constitution bit has to do with the laws the govern the contract signed by Detroit and Comcast. It sounds very much like a secondary point.

Re:Ha, a bad interpertation by Detroit

[commodore64_love]

Yet another person who didn't read the article.

Detroit is not saying anything of the kind. Detroit is reading the MICHIGAN constitution and saying it gives Detroit exclusive power to make contracts with Comcast and other utilities inside the city.

Re:Ha, a bad interpertation by Detroit

[GasparGMSwordsman]

The FCC governs many items that would not "normally" qualify as Federal Jurisdiction.

An example:
I could have a very week HAM radio that could only reach a block or two down the street. I could be in the middle of my State. However because I am broadcasting a radio signal in a specific band I require authorization from the FCC to legally use that equipment.

Being as Comcast is an entity that is strongly regulated by the FCC, I would be surprised if the FCC had no jurisdiction here.

What they fail to mention is the 10th Amendment. The Detroit interpretation is ignoring the fact that unless there is an enabling statute, the federal law is void. It would make the 10th amendment at odds with the article, and void both provisions. It would be impossible to reserve any power to the states if federal law trumps state law. We've avoided this so far by having the federal only govern international and interstate commerce.

Historically, Federal law DOES trump State law if the subject falls within Federal Jurisdiction. I would suspect that if it came to a FCC verses Comcast issue, Comcast would argue that there is no Federal Jurisdiction here (as it seems is your argument).

Why are franchises even legal?

[MikeRT]

They are nothing more than restraints on trade that protect incumbents. Why should Cox need a "by your leave, sire" from Detroit to wire up its own infrastructure and compete against Comcast? Why can't AT&T just make its own agreements with property owners and wire up a competitor to FiOS?

Oh right, because some asshat thinks that he can regulate these businesses "in the public interest" to get concessions "for the community" like the freebies to local government and schools.

It's not worth it. Break it all up and open up the market so these companies will have no excuse to not compete with each other.

Re:Why are franchises even legal?

[Migraineman]

DC tried this, and it just resulted in one company tearing up a street that the previous company tore up and re-paved. You've never seen so much redundant construction and horrible patch-jobs. Oh, and when Company A "accidentally" drops the backhoe bucket on Company B's fiber, Company B will be along shortly to dig up the street (again) to repair their infrastructure.

There's merit to having a common infrastructure, but it probably needs to be a municipal resource. That's a completely different type of monopoly, and is subject to a different type of corruption. I personally think "communications as a utility" is less evil than a communications infrastructure that's privately owned (and can be withheld on a corporate whim.)

Re:Why are franchises even legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

because some asshat thinks that he can regulate these businesses "in the public interest" to get concessions "for the community"

In all honesty the situation exists because its mutually beneficial. What if AT&T went out to "make its own agreements with property owners" and discovered that they're being boxed in by competitors paying homeowners not to allow them to cut across their property surrounding their gear? It's hard to imagine now because all the wiring has been done thanks to government intervention, but places without franchises have all sorts of crazy weird issues, like cable companies that serve exactly one apartment complex, and are the only way to get cable there.

Re:Why are franchises even legal?

[blair1q]

Because "wire up your own infrastructure" requires ripping up the streets, blocking traffic, entering on and using public property (and public easements on private property) to hold your wires, etc.

Local jurisdictions go the "public utility" route to make the net cost to the public low. Having several companies doing the same infrastructure installation would have an economic cost far larger than the economic benefit of direct competition.

To compensate for the lack of competition, the local jurisdiction contracts with the "utility" to provide the services at less than the true monopolistic price.

Of course, this entire system is wide open to corruption of all kinds, including allowing the "utility" to make a few extra shekels off the private subscriber in return for providing "free" service - that essentially costs them nothing - to public subscribers (i.e, government entities like schools).

So it's not perfect, and it's easy to find the flaws, but overall it comes out somewhat cheaper to let one cable company own a city or a county than to let four of them dig up the pavement over and over again.

The trick to keeping it that way is to elect competent, credible, conscientious members to the corporation commission or whatever body regulates the utilities in your 'hood. But of course "election" means "graft", so guess who the CC members really answer to? Hint: it's not you, unless you agitate and vote.

Re:Why are franchises even legal?

[ducomputergeek]

If our local community wanted to pass any type of tax increase to build a public fiber network and then lease those lines out to whatever providers wanted to compete for my $$$, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. I'm not sure I want government entities providing the service, but just building and maintaining the line/infrastructure. For rural districts, they should do what farmers and people did years ago: form coops.

I have a house in Missouri and a townhouse I rent in Illinois. All my utilities in Missouri are coop or city/county owned other than my internet connection (cable). The townhouse in Illinois, everything but the water is private infrastructure (and the city is trying to sell that to private company). We had horrible storms through a year ago. In Missouri I was without power for a little over a day. Illinois it was almost two weeks and both locations suffered roughly equal damage. And I pay less than half the utility rates in Missouri as I do in Illinois per Kw/h.

eliminating 31 to 51

[s122604]

Did the decision yesterday really say that?
I'm just asking, because all I saw was 500MHZ additional to wireless services, but they didn't say where those 500Mhz were coming from. I assumed it would be carved out of sub 5Ghz spectrum, but not the UHF TV band

Was there additional info published?

Re:eliminating 31 to 51

[commodore64_love]

"120 MHz will come from broadcasters" according to the article, and if you've been following the FCC broadband discussion, that means taking 20 channels from television (31 to 51).

You have 20 days to comply.

[Chris Burke]

I'm glad to see that ED-209 found new work as a lawyer.

Quick summary of Michigan peoples' view of Comcast

[Nebulious]

Fuck Comcast. Prices are too high, repair services are too slow, and Internet service is extremely unreliable.

Re: Detroit's history of corruption - shakedown

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look back at Detroit's cable history (BARDEN CABLE) you will see why this is happening. They cannot shakedown Comcast the way they normally get to with most city businesses - the pay to play system is deeply engrained in motown. Statewide rules mean no special slush-funds to the good old boy plan. (even though some are starting to get caught and jailed)

You didn't read it either.

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't read it either. It was about some corporations not having to pay taxes. I.e. a huge tax break for the British owned companies. Just like huge tax breaks on the rich today, except that is being demanded by the people who are proposing themselves to be the tea party...

Clear QAM just OTA now and you CAN'T buy the box a

[Joe The Dragon]

Clear QAM just OTA now and you CAN'T buy the box / cable card in comcast systems.

Service Electric seems to be the only cable co that let's buy the card.
Purchase CableCARD for a one-time fee of $125.00 and receive a one-year warranty on the CableCARD from the manufacture so you never have to worry about rental fees again!

Comcast pay $8 /m per outlet or $16 /m per HD DVR. They also have super cheap DTA's that don't even get the full starter lineup NO guide, NO VOD, NO PPV, NO NHL CI, NO NBA LP, NO MLB EI, NO CSN +. 2 Free for now then about $2 /m for ones after that.

Service Electric
              Standard Digital Converter ... $2.95 / mo

        * Receive channels in 100% digital quality
        * Includes 45 Digital Music Choice channels at no extra cost!
        * Access to Video OnDemand and Pay-Per-View events!
        * Interactive TV Guide service so you always know what's on

48207?

[BancBoy]

People who know people that live there?
People who live there?
Canadians, who can see them by looking North into the U.S. from Windsor, ON? (Yes, that's correct, I've done it.)

No, the cat does not, in fact, "got my tongue."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

As someone who lives just outside the City of Detroit proper, and watches the clownish manipulations of that collapsing kleptocracy, that failed mini-state which has grave difficulties maintaining authority in some regions, screw 'em.

It's just an attempt to get more money extracted from yet another business. It relies on the failed notion of "there's not room for the two of us, pardner", so beloved in statism, yet so contrary to the power of capitalism.

They want this 1985 agreement. This agreement was after years of delay in even getting cable TV (Detroit lagged the suburbs by many years) precisely because Detroit was demanding everything be covered in exchange for exclusivity and god knows what kickbacks.

Comcast runs amok in Michigan

[freelunch]

The law that moved Michigan's franchise authority to the state level lacks any provision for resolution or mediation of consumer disputes. What a wonderful gift to comcast - no complaints to deal with. Prices go up and up, and in some areas comcast's hardware is oversubscribed, so image quality is poor. Analog quality was better than their digital.

Thank you Governor Granholm. Maybe you can further stimulate Michigan's economy by converting even more waterfront public parks to private golf courses. And when your final term soon ends, maybe Comcast will have a nice job for you.

Re:Comcast runs amok in Michigan

[Ark42]

Not to mention no consumer protection at all.
I just now mailed off a check for $1200 for Comcast to drop a wire from the road to my house on the outskirts of GR. Why so much? Because the existing cable line is on the other side of the street, and I'm more than 150' from the road. This doesn't include actual service installation or a single month of service. It is just to feed the cable closer to my house.

Detroit vs State of Michigan

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why Detroit just doesn't sue the state in the first place?

Since Detroit is a broken down shithole that looks like a warzone from some 3rd world country, I can't help but wonder why the rest of the State of Michigan doesn't just simply de-annex, and eject and expel the whole Detroit metro area, perhaps including Flint too, from the state, and leave them to fend for themselves separate from the State of Michigan.

Re: Detroit's history of corruption - shakedown

[Hellpop]

Regardless, It all boils down to Michigan only seeming to care about constitutionality when they can get free shit at someone else's expense. You think Comcast will end up paying? Comcast's customers will end up paying.

No news here...

False alarm!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on people, think!

What are the odds of them fighting a monopoly and winning? So this is obviously just a weak ploy to negotiate a few more crumbs for the ignorant locals. No big deal, really, just a higher cable bill.

Everyone knows that nothing ever changes so don't bother fighting for our rights, right?

Re:Quick summary of Michigan peoples' view of Comc

[sexconker]

Fuck Comcast. Prices are too high, repair services are too slow, and Internet service is extremely

< N O C A R R I E R >

Fixed that for you.

Re:Quick summary of Michigan peoples' view of Comc

[jjbenz]

I think there are quite a few people outside Michigan that also think that way about Comcast.

The Supreme Court...

[Anonymous Coward]

...once also said that slavery was legal and people held as slaves were considered personal property of their owners.

mod up parent

[mzs]

In fact there tend to be easements along the sides of the plat as well now-a-days (that's where electric and gas go after-all). One point is that the easement is usually not moved 15' how you said. There tend to be easements of three classes, sometimes they can easily say that one is no longer just for telco/cable but also now gas and electric say. But in your fence example it is likely a different situation not related to easement at all. In fact for the classes of easements along the sides of the property, they often allow structures such as fences to be built there. Of course you are responsible if the fence needs to be removed, etc. Most communities use 'the book' and just amend it for codes. The fence example is likely that the older books had something like no fences higher than 3ft 15ft from a road. Lots of communities have amended that to no fences forward of the primary structure and a slight variation on that for the corner lots.It's to make roads/driveways/sidewalks safer and to eliminate tedious surveys.

Re:mod up parent

[JWSmythe]

    My example was a rural area. They never provided a good reason for the expansion. There was no city water, sewer, or gas. The only utilities were power, phones, and (eventually) cable. Those were all run overhead.

    In that it was a rural area, the fences were usually to keep livestock in. It wasn't decorative or for security. Moving a length of fence isn't a terribly big deal for most residential properties, but when a single change like that has dozens of people moving several miles of fence, it does become a big deal. If I remember right (which I may not), the county finally conceded to allow the fences to remain in place, but any new fences must be built by their new rules, and if the county were to ever decide that they needed the fences moved, they'd be moved one way or another. They had made enough room for a 4 lane highway to be put through (in theory), where only a couple dozen people ever drove that road, and it didn't look like that would increase any time in the foreseeable future. In reality, 20 years later, last I heard is that the population is the same there, mostly the same families that had lived there for quite a while.

"avoid putting the shareholders in jail."

[Radical Moderate]

God would I love to see that on some corporation's mission statement!

Re: Detroit's history of corruption - shakedown

[spazdor]

Also, gun nuts.

No need to raise taxes...

[Radical Moderate]

Issue bonds, and pay for them from the revenue raised by charging customers for internet service. Pretty simple.

My house is about 3 blocks outside the jurisdiction of an electricity co-op, instead I deal with a huge mega-corporation. The co-op takes much better care of their customers.