Comcast Sues Vermont To Avoid Building 550 Miles of New Cable Lines (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Comcast has sued the state of Vermont to try to avoid a requirement to build 550 miles of new cable lines. Comcast's lawsuit against the Vermont Public Utility Commission (VPUC) was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Vermont and challenges several provisions in the cable company's new 11-year permit to offer services in the state. One of the conditions in the permit says that "Comcast shall construct no less than 550 miles of line extensions into un-cabled areas during the [11-year] term." Comcast would rather not do that. The company's court complaint says that Vermont is exceeding its authority under the federal Cable Act while also violating state law and Comcast's constitutional rights: "The VPUC claimed that it could impose the blanket 550-mile line extension mandate on Comcast because it is the 'largest' cable operator in Vermont and can afford it. These discriminatory conditions contravene federal and state law, amount to undue speaker-based burdens on Comcast's protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution... and deprive Comcast and its subscribers of the benefits of Vermont law enjoyed by other cable operators and their subscribers without a just and rational basis, in violation of the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution."

Comments

Not a constitutional right

[mysidia]

amount to undue speaker-based burdens on Comcast's protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

Sorry.... no "Speaker-based burdens". Deciding where to install cabling is business, not speech.

Evidence: You require a PERMIT to install this cabling. If something's a constitutional or other legal right then you don't have to get a PERMIT to be authorized to do it.

If you require authorization from the public, then the public gets to negotiate the terms of that authorization to provide the public a benefit offsetting the expense of the privileges you are being granted and expected to use.

The SIZE of your existing installation is a germane topic regarding permits for operating a cable company.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Kierthos]

Yes, there are certain checks on the freedom of assembly.

Generally speaking, if your assembly gets violent, you can expect the police to get involved, and you really can't claim that as a violation of your freedom to assemble. (Well, you can claim it, but whether the judge buys it is a different matter.)

And again, generally speaking, the law can restrict when you gather. For example, you can't expect to be holding a loud (albeit peaceful) rally in the wee hours of the morning without being cited for disturbing the peace.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[hey!]

While I agree with your conclusion, I think your line of reasoning is a bit shaky.

Laying cable is not subject to First Amendment protections, not because it requires a permit, but because it is not speech. There is no expressive content, and you're burying your work in the fricken' ground.

Comcast's argument, if I understand it, amounts to an analogy. They're claiming that saying, "You can lay cable here as long as you also lay a certain amount of cable there," is analogous to saying "You can hold a rally, but you have to praise the Dear Leader." And it is analogous; but like all analogies it has its limitations; in this case the limitation is that laying cable isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Still, it'd be a huge victory for Comcast if they could get the court to rule that laying cable is speech. This would greatly limit the power of government to regulate their business.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[MachineShedFred]

You can protest any time you want, but if you want to use city property and expect the city to help you (e.g. close streets) then yes, you need a permit. If you don't close the streets and obstruct traffic with your protest, you are committing a crime - your rights to free speech don't come above others' rights of freedom of movement, or established municipal code.

Feel free to walk around on the sidewalk with a sign and have your protest with no permit, no law enforcement will say a word.

Solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vermont could build its own municipal cable company to wire all the homes, with blackjack, and hookers, too. Then Comcast would sue for unfair competition, I suppose.

Re:Solution!

[Rockoon]

This isnt regulation. Its contract.

Comcast signed it. Thats the end of all "regulation" arguments.

I would personally prefer that no State permit be required and thus no State contract, that Comcast and so forth would instead need to get individual contracts from each and every property owner individually rather than use State power to force all property owners to allow Comcast an easement.

My better world isnt here. The world of contracts is here. Comcast signed it.

Re:Well Comcast should have read the TOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no! You KNOW those Vermont lawyers pulled a fast one on those Harvard and Yale educated Comcast lawyers! The Comcast people are just simple folks who don't understand the complexities of the law and we should cut them some slack.

And we know that government regulations are just evil and impede corporate prof.....I mean job growth and hurt the economy for us little people.

So, I think, Comca$t should be allowed to reneg on the agreements that the VPUC bamboozled them into signing. After all, it's good for the people.

And those people in those rural areas are just free to build their own community ISP at any time they want - so what's their beef!

(Hey! These Disney shaped candies are awesome - the colors, man! Like this mauve elephant in my room heree.)

Network Investment

[anomalous3]

Something Something Network Investment. Something Something Title II. It's pretty hard to claim that you WANT to invest in infrastructure when you're suing to breach a contract that said you'd invest in infrastructure.

Public property

[buck-yar]

Last time I checked, Comcast used mostly roadside utility poles and roadside underground cabling. All owned by the state and local municipalities. If they want to use the public's property, they have to abide by the public's rules.

I don't see how this is a first amendment issue at all.

Re:Public property

[Anonymous Coward]

They signed a contract. They AGREED to this, and are now trying to back out.

Re:concast cable We don't care about the law.

[Rockoon]

Its not law, its contact.

..and if Comcast didnt like the contract, they shouldnt have signed it.

I feel this way on both sides of this issue. Both Comcast and Vermont should be held to their contractual obligations.

If Comcast doesn't want to live up to the contract then they can pound sand and the court can decide how to make Vermont whole. I'm sure there are more than a few competing cable companies that want to service those areas, and I'm sure a nice big financial judgment against Comcast will delight the voters.

If the people of Vermont don't like whats in the contract then the voters should make it a key issue during the next election and vote out all the people involved in signing the bad contract, and additionally all the people they support too just to get the message across that signing contracts that are not in the peoples best interest will absolutely not be tolerated.

Also... an 11 year franchise contract? What the fuck?

I see no violation of the Constitution

[PortHaven]

They want to have a monopoly that requires they have a license from the state, then they're subjected to that license.

Frankly, we have been paying fees to the telcos for decades, these funds were supposed to facilitate their reaching rural areas. Except they basically pocked them and do zero upgrades to their infrastructure. Sorry, absolutely zero sympathy for Comcast.

Re:Well Comcast should have read the TOS

[Xyrus]

Comcast is actually one of the reasons why I wouldn't move to Vermont. Unless DSL satisfies you're requirements (or you live in a few select areas), you're only real choice for broadband in Comcrap. Putting aside their horrible history of customer service, they actively work to sabotage every other broadband effort in the state. This is just another of many such efforts. They want the permits, but they don't actually want to build out anything. Why? Because if they did then another company could waltz in and use the lines.

The reason Vermont put that provision in there in the first place is because they're fed up with bullshit companies like Comcast fucking them over by buying permits just to sit on them. So finally they said "You buy a permit, you have to fucking use it."

Re:Well Comcast should have read the TOS

[cellocgw]

To correct this misimpression: VTel has run rather a lot of FTTH throughout their part of Vermont. It's really quite amazing to me that I can have a house on a 2 mile dirt road off a backwater other road and enjoy FTTH right out there in the boonies.

Just hope the rest of the state gets the same treatment some day.