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."

26 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 chill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. 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
    3. 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
    4. 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?
    5. 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)
    6. 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!
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

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

      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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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
    13. Re:Detroit is broke by michael_cain · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  2. Only game in town and ... by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    " 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.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Only game in town and ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  3. 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...

  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Re:They have a point by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  7. 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.
  8. Re:They have a point by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  9. 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.)

  10. Re:They have a point by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Informative

    >>>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.

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

    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.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)