Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Statewide Franchise Illegal? Detroit Sues Comcast

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the that-sounds-desperate dept.

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."

18 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Detroit is broke by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Detroit is broke by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Detroit is broke by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:Detroit is broke by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Detroit is broke by Balthisar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      --Jim (me)
    5. Re:Detroit is broke by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    6. Re:Detroit is broke by Wiarumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    7. Re:Detroit is broke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Detroit is broke by michael_cain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Detroit is broke by mea37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Detroit is broke by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>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

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. Comcast Victims by Kylere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  3. It's not "bribes" it's "free speech"! by Benfea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least according to our US Supreme Court.

    1. Re:It's not "bribes" it's "free speech"! by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  4. Re:They have a point by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  5. Re:They have a point by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Insightful

    >>>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)

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  6. Re:They have a point by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  7. Re:Why are franchises even legal? by Migraineman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)