Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Worcester Mass. City Council Votes To Keep Comcast From Entering the Area

Posted by samzenpus on from the and-stay-out dept.

First time accepted submitter _AustinPowell writes Comcast wants a cable television license in Worcester, Massachusetts. In response, the City Council voted 8-3 to urge Worcester's city manager to let the company's license request die. The deadline for the decision is Wednesday, but the manager is not bound by the vote of the Council. "It's a terrible company," City Councilor Gary Rosen said. "In my opinion, they should not be welcome in this city. Comcast is a wolf in wolf's clothing; it's that bad."

5 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. No, they didn't by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, I was about to post this to the Firehose submission in the hopes that it wouldn't be posted because this is basically a non-story. It means nothing.

    As Ars Technica's version makes clear this is absolutely meaningless: Comcast will almost certainly be allowed to take over for Charter over the city council's objections because they don't actually have the power to prevent it. It's local political theater and nothing more.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  2. Re:So competition is bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you bothered to RTFA, you would know that Comcast is buying up Charter's licenses in central Massachusetts. They wish to buy it for this city too. This does not add any competition.

  3. It's not competition. by Letophoro · · Score: 3, Informative

    Monopoly player 1 (Comcast) is attempting to purchase the monopoly franchise from monopoly player 2 (Charter). Unfortunately for them, the city council has a say in whether or not they can do so.

    1. Re:It's not competition. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Informative

      Monopoly player 1 (Comcast) is attempting to purchase the monopoly franchise from monopoly player 2 (Charter).

      Neither company has a dejure monopoly. Comcast has already purchased the license.

      Unfortunately for them, the city council has a say in whether or not they can do so.

      No, if you RTFA you'll see that the city manager has the say and can ignore the council if he wishes.

      In response, the Council voted 8-3 to urge Worcester's city manager to let the company's license request die. The deadline for the decision is Wednesday, but the manager is not bound by the vote of the Council.

      TFA also says that if the license transfer request "dies", Comcast will simply appeal the decision and will almost certainly win. The city has already granted a franchise to Charter and as long as Comcast follows the franchise agreement the city has no reason to refuse the transfer. And if the city manager tries to keep Comcast from taking over from Charter, that means there will be no cable operator (and one less broadband ISP) in that city, a fact that the residents may take great umbrage at. As in, they elect the city council that caused their TV and internet to go away.

  4. Following in Lexington's Footsteps by bengoerz · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is on the heels of the City Council in Lexington, KY voting recently to oppose the Comcast/Time Warner merger.

    Story on Ars: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/10/kentucky-city-threatens-to-block-comcasttime-warner-cable-merger/