Slashdot Mirror
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."
" 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"
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...
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
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
At least according to our US Supreme Court.
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)
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.
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.)
>>>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
>>>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