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

Well Comcast should have read the TOS

[Crashmarik]

There was a section that said Vermont could change it any time.

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.)

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Vermont has had provisions like these since the days of Howard Dean as governor. 50 miles of cabling per year is really a low bar but also ensures tax payers actually get something from their subsidy. I wish more states actually held companies accountable. That said, DSL is Vermont is quite serviceable. For such a small state they have good infrastructure.

It worked out well for me, I got 768k/256k DSL back in 1997. I moved to Arizona in 2001 and had to endure a one-way cable modem with 56k up. Since then Arizona with Cox cable improved dramatically but it says a lot about a tiny state that they can have such connectivity when a much larger state like Arizona was still in the dark ages.

Also worth noting that Comcast in Vermont isn't as bad as it is in say Florida. Vermont has lots of consumer protection so that plays into it. My parents had them for years and never had a complaint. Contrast that with my dealings with them in Utah and Florida and yeah, they are crap.

Re:Well Comcast should have read the TOS

[nnet]

Because if they did then another company could waltz in and use the lines.

When have American cable operators ever had to open their lines to another company? Citation please.

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.

Re:Well Comcast should have read the TOS

[Rakarra]

Because if they did then another company could waltz in and use the lines.

When have American cable operators ever had to open their lines to another company? Citation please.

Cable operators haven't, but the regional phone company monopolies in the US were required to open their lines to competition by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That resulted in what I fondly recall as the "golden age of DSL," where you had a dozen companies in many areas leasing lines from the phone companies and vying for customers. Unfortunately, the Act also shattered most barriers to consolidation, so the bells responded by purchasing all the local guys and absorbing them into the fold, and then erecting other, different barriers to entry. Once that was done, they started gobbling up each other, until finally the shattering of Ma Bell in 1984 was mostly undone, and once again consumers have little choice in the broadband market.

Re:Well Comcast should have read the TOS

[antdude]

"... Unless DSL satisfies you're requirements ..."

FYI, you have a typo. ;)

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

[TFlan91]

If I'm not mistaken, in most areas you require a permit to hold a rally, protest, etc. Pretty sure freedom of assembly is a constitutional right

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Raul654]

If something's a constitutional or other legal right then you don't have to get a PERMIT to be authorized to do it.

Unless Grayned v. Rockford has been overturned while I wasn't looking, that is just not true. The government has a well-established right to regulate the time, place, and manner in which you exercise that speech.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Vermonter]

While I do agree that you shouldn't need a permit to exercise your constitutional rights, there is sadly plenty of precedents that say otherwise. In almost all states (although a bit ironically here, not in Vermont) you need at least one permit if not more to exercise yous second amendment rights to bear arms, and in many cities you need a permit to exercise your first amendment right to protest.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[buck-yar]

Hence "free speech zones."

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Raul654]

I don't like them, but as long as they are content-neutral then they are constitutional. That being said, they become unconstitutional the minute you start forcing your critics to use them but don't do the same with your supporters.

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

[I75BJC]

That's not accurate. Some jurisdictions require a permit for "Free Speech". The Governments aren't permitted to discriminate in the issuing of permits but a permit is definitely require. Too bad that you aren't aware.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[El Cubano]

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

I agree with you. However, levying a requirement on one operator and not others strictly because of size is clearly discriminatory.

A better approach would be to establish a formula that mandates build out to un-cabled areas as a function of gross revenues generated by customers in the state. It needs to be revenue based instead of based on the number of customers or amount of profit because being based on the number of customers would be easily gamed and of course anything profit-based would easily fall victim to accounting tricks which big companies are so fond of.

In that way a mom and pop operation that makes small $$ would have a small build out requirement and Comcast and other big fish would that make lots of $$ would have a bigger requirement. The objective is still achieved and in a clear, open, and fair manner.

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

[flink]

I don't like them, but as long as they are content-neutral then they are constitutional. That being said, they become unconstitutional the minute you start forcing your critics to use them but don't do the same with your supporters.

That's exactly what they did.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Rockoon]

This whole 1st Amendment shit is a red herring. Even if laying cable is "speech", Comcast signed a contract to do it, which isnt any different than Susan Bennet signing a contract to be the voice of Siri.

Here is the applicable text of the contract:

33. Comcast shall construct no less than 550 miles of line extensions into uncabled areas during the term of this CPG. Comcast may satisfy this obligation either by fully funding the line extensions or by collecting contributions-in-aid-of-construction from customers pursuant to its line extension tariff. Any line extensions that are funded by a grant from any federal or state governmental agency shall not be used to satisfy this requirement. Comcast shall annually file with the Board and the Department a report that details all line extensions completed during the prior calendar year. This report shall, at minimum, describe the length and location of all completed line extensions and the funding source for such extensions.

There are a few more sections about line extensions, but only in the manner in which they are handled.

Re: Not a constitutional right

[Vermonter]

In all fairness, you don't need a permit to buy a gun in Vermont

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Zak3056]

Just to play devil's advocate, we are talking about the construction of a communications network so it's conceivable there's a first amendment angle. To use an analogy (though as you point out, they have their limitations) imagine Vermont mandated that the newspaper you wanted to circulate in Burlington had to offer daily home delivery in Montpelier in order to operate in the state. Would this be a legitimate exercise of the state to regulate a business, or an unconstitutional restriction of a free press?

This is actually strengthened, I would think, based on the fact that Comcast owns NBC/Universal. They're not just in the business of content delivery, but of content creation.

As I said, Devil's advocate. I don't really buy into the above argument, but it seems valid.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[JeffOwl]

If your rally or protest deprives others of the use of a public resource then it is reasonable to require that you coordinate the event with those charged with maintaining the utility of said resource.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[msauve]

"levying a requirement on one operator and not others strictly because of size is clearly discriminatory."

But not any more illegal than, say, having different tax rates for different income levels.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clearly discriminatory, but is it clearly discriminatory in a way that would be legally prohibited? The fact that antitrust law has been enforced would seem to indicate that treating companies differently dependent upon market position is legal.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[MachineShedFred]

Yes, you have the right to free assembly, but you do not have the right to assemble wherever you wish. If you plan on using municipal property (including public streets that would need to be closed), then you need to get permission from the city. This is not a restriction of free speech or free assembly, it is a restriction on land usage, and a request for the use of city services for public safety.

You are always free to assemble on property that you own, with whomever you wish as long as their rights are not restricted in some legal way (e.g. they are in prison).

Re:Not a constitutional right

[OneAhead]

Sorry sir, Citizens United (the SCrOTUS verdict, not the organization) has created a precedent that pretty much anything can be redefined as "speech". This is merely the logical next step the liberal hippy communist SJWs have been warning you about.

Also, that sentence from Comcast's court complaint you're quoting is going to be my "exhibit A" in arguing why lawyers should never ever be allowed to smoke pot, even if they're in inhumane pain and it's the last analgesic on earth.

Re: Not a constitutional right

[Guppy]

Such a poor defense strategy suggests Comcast doesn't intend to win this court case. Rather, they probably intend to tie up things in legal proceedings for a good long while.

I'd check the contract carefully to see if there is any sort of clock they can run out by delaying this implementation, or some elected or appointed official's term expiry coming up.

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.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Rockoon]

Its wrong because the State has not mandated anything. Comcast signed a contract with the State agreeing to build out more infrastructure in exchange for an 11 year franchise permit.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Solandri]

I agree with you. However, levying a requirement on one operator and not others strictly because of size is clearly discriminatory.

It's only discriminatory if the cable operators are in direct competition with each other. I'll bet that the smaller cable operators are in regions serviced by two ore more cable companies in competition with each other. But most of Comocast's service is in areas where they enjoy a monopoly. You can't discriminate (favor one over another) when there's only one entity.

In fact the only time I've seen build-out requirements like this is in exchange for granting the company a monopoly. The government adds the build-out requirement either because it fears the lack of competition will result in insufficient increase in coverage area, or they want to make certain that coverage is extended to a certain area (e.g. low income or rural).

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Immerman]

>they become unconstitutional the minute you start forcing your critics to use them but don't do the same with your supporters.

Why else would you have them at all?

Re:Not a constitutional right

[El Cubano]

But not any more illegal than, say, having different tax rates for different income levels.

It is interesting that you mention that. I actually started use income taxes as an example, but I figured it would detract from my overall point, seeing as there are lots of people who would reflexively down-mod any suggestion along the lines of "taxing those who earn more at a higher rate is not right and everyone should be taxed at the same rate".

You are correct in that it is not illegal to have different income tax rates, but that doesn't make it right. Personally, I don't think "they can afford it" is a proper justification. You may have someone earning $50k living better than someone who earns $150k because of family situations, personal tragedies, etc. If you tax someone who makes $50k at an effective rate of 10% and someone who makes $150k at an effective rate of 20% what you are saying is along the lines of "you should penalized for your success." Seeing that we already have something like half of the population not paying income taxes, things are already unfair enough on that front. To me, the only "fair" solution is to have uniform taxation (I happen to like the Fair Tax proposal which uniformly taxes everything at the point of first retail sale and which accounts for spending on necessities by giving a pre-bate on taxes spent on everything up to the federal poverty line). That particular proposal happens to place each taxpayer in complete control of exactly how much tax they pay, regardless of how much they earn. Of course, it will never get any real consideration because then Congress would lose the ability to use the tax code to control people's behavior.

In the same way that I think "they can afford it" is an improper justification for individual taxes, I think it is an improper justification for regulating and taxing businesses differently from their competitors. The marketplace should be level and any government involvement in the marketplace should treat competitors equitably. It is really the only logical approach if you believe in "equal justice (or treatment) before the law."

Re:Not a constitutional right

[msauve]

"If you tax someone who makes $50k at an effective rate of 10% and someone who makes $150k at an effective rate of 20%"

Why stop there? Even if the rate is the same, the person earning more still pays more. Do they get additional government services for their greater payment? How about property taxes? Subsidies/tax breaks which go to one industry, but not another?

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Goldsmith]

Discriminatory in this context has no negative connotation. It's responsible government.

There are many ways to provide equal treatment under the law. It is not always desirable or efficient to legislate and regulate for every possible situation. Instead of having a thick rule book, Vermont has a public committee who is responsible for permitting cable operators. Every operator, from small mom & pop shops to Comcast has to deal with the same government run committee, which the media and the public (should) have access to.

In a situation with quickly moving technology and in an industry with a history of misleading customers, this is a much better approach than simple rules making, where exploiting loopholes in enforcement or regulations can give an unfair advantage. Having a set of people involved helps the government enforce the letter as well as the spirit of the law on a permit-by-permit basis.

There are other industries policed this way. Construction, insurance, and medical research are a couple of examples.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[hey!]

Well, here's the flaw in your newspaper analogy. A physical copy of a newspaper is an embodiment of expression. A network is not; it's just a delivery mechanism.

So the closest newspaper analogy would be a newspaper vending box -- something younger people here may never have seen but which were once ubiquitous enough to be considered a nuisance. And there's even case law about regulating newspaper vending boxes. Generally you can as long as you don't do it based on what the box contains (e.g. no difference in treatment for the Washington Post and the Washington Times), you have a legitimate public interest in that regulation and it's narrowly tailored to meet its ends.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[El Cubano]

Why stop there? Even if the rate is the same, the person earning more still pays more. Do they get additional government services for their greater payment? How about property taxes? Subsidies/tax breaks which go to one industry, but not another?

This is why I happen to think income-based taxation is the worst possible strategy. Property taxes and most other taxes are already uniform. For example, I am not aware of any jurisdiction that taxes properties differently based on their assessed value. They may have exemptions (e.g., lower your assessed value if it is your primary residence, or lower your assessed value if you are drawing Social Security disability, etc.). But they don't have 1% tax rate for properties up to $100k assessed value, 2% tax rate for properties from $100k to $500k, etc. Now, there may different tax rates applied depending upon the designated use of the property (a residential property may be taxed differently than an industrial property), which is usually fine. Sales taxes are another example, they tend to be flat (at least within a tax jurisdiction, where you may have state, county, and local taxes all adding up to determine the tax rate that shows on the receipt at the store). It would probably not pass legal muster to tax certain things at different rates based solely on their cost. Though, there are lots of examples of different taxes on different classes of goods (e.g., tobacco and liquor). But again those tend to be uniform.

All of this is why I like the Fair Tax proposal. It is uniform and you can determine your exact tax burden with a few simple mathematical operations on the back of a business card. It is a far cry from the tangled mess that we have now. And by the way, if you are a fan of "tax the rich because they can afford it" the Fair Tax handles that too. If you buy a big ticket item, you pay the same tax rate on that. So, if I go buy a book for $10, I will pay tax on that at X %. If some rich guy goes and buys a yacht for $10M, then he will literally pay 1,000,000 times the gross tax I paid on my $10 book. Seems very fair to me.

Also, think about this: how prevalent is sales tax fraud compared to income tax fraud? Hint: sales tax fraud is a rounding error compared to income tax fraud. I am not saying nonexistent, just a few orders of magnitude less common. Income tax fraud requires one party to act fraudulently. Sales tax fraud requires two or three parties to act fraudulently, which is far less likely. Also, drug dealers, gangbangers, and organized criminals all buy stuff too, so they will begin to share in the burden of funding the government, whether they want to or not.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[KingMotley]

First, IANAL, however after reading Grayned v. Rockford, it doesn't support what you say.

Grayned v. Rockford was about the constitutionality of two city ordinances in which demonstrators were arrested while protesting outside a school while school was in session.

The first ordinance, the "anti-picketing" ordinance was ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme count of Illinois.

The second ordinance, the "anti-noise" ordinance was ruled constitutional, but was only violated because of where, when AND manner that speech was exercised. They could have done any two of those things, but only when all three were done (adjacent to a school, during/30-minutes prior or after school session, AND loud enough to disrupt regular school operation) was in violation of the law.

According to Grayned v. Rockford, they didn't need a PERMIT, nor was there a way to get a PERMIT to do what they did (make enough noise close enough to a school to disrupt it's normal operation). While an interesting case, it simply doesn't support what you say it does. The government isn't regulating free speech in this case. It is however interpreting what happens when one's right to free speech violates another's rights, and deciding which takes priority and codifies it in law.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[mysidia]

If I'm not mistaken, in most areas you require a permit to hold a rally, protest, etc.

You have the right to rally, protest, etc, ONLY if it is your property or with permission of the property owner, and if the owner of the property you use will allow it they get to decide WHEN and WHERE you may do so.

If your intended venue for any rally/protest-related activities is a public street or park, then the property owner is the public, and the process by which you
secure that permission is a PERMIT.

You DON'T have a constitutional right to rally or protest on public property; However, in most cases, the city, local
authority will give you permission. They can choose to allow or NOT allow you to have your protest or rally on their property.

They could deny you, because the time is inconvenient, OR you had a protest that ended violently, OR they could deny you because you've
had too many rallies, or the proposed duration is too long.

What they cannot do is only allow certain groups but not others to hold similar events, or discriminate against your message or control lawful content of your speech during the permitted event.
For public grounds open to events, they generally can't tell you "NO, NEVER", but they can tell you "NO, NOT AT THE REQUESTED TIME or Duration", provided they would tell the same to any group requesting that time or duration.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[mysidia]

You are always free to assemble on property that you own, with whomever you wish as long as their rights are not restricted in some legal way

Yes... with the minor caveat that your land is still subject to zoning and land-use regulation (E.g. amount of Car and Foot traffic), plus the people in your assemblies may not violate any laws regarding safety, fire code (maximum number of people in a place), or cause noise complaints, or create a disturbance of the peace --- the assembly itself can become unlawful with shared guilt if it becomes disruptive to people not on your property.

For example: You can't invite 100 people into your front yard at 3:00 AM, and have a screaming-fest that prevents any of your neighbors from sleeping.

To TRULY secure your assembly rights to make as much noise as you want, then you need to own enough land to create a secluded venue in the middle of a large-enough fenced-in area outside any HOA land-use restrictions or "planned"/zoned development area, that nobody outside the assembly will have be able to see or have a complaint about what is happening.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[El Cubano]

I don't know of one which doesn't. If what you say were true, there would be no reason to have a (government) assessed value, everyone would pay the same. As it is, your taxes go up if the assessed value does - if that's not a difference "based on their assessed value", I'm not sure what is.

I think we have a miscommunication here.

The rates of taxation on property are uniform. I pay 2.5% and so does my next door neighbor. My house is assessed at a value of $100k, so I pay $2500, his house is assessed at $150k, so he pays $3750.

It is no different than if I go to the store and buy a $100 tablet, on which I will pay $6.50 sales tax. If you guy and buy a $200 tablet, you will pay $13.00. If they looked at you and said, hey you are buying a more expensive tablet and can afford to pay more tax, so we are taxing you 9% instead of 6.5%, that would be unfair. It is the same for property tax, and I maintain that it is the same for income tax. This is why there such a big deal made over the income tax passed in Seattle for high earners. The Washington Constitution says that taxes have to be uniform (e.g., at the same rate of taxation on all affected parties) and that provision has successfully been used to challenge attempts at levying progressive income taxes.

The important thing is that the rate of taxation is uniform regardless of the amount being taxed.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Raul654]

It says exactly what I said it does. Quoting verbatim from that decision: "Our cases make equally clear, however, that reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted."

Re: Not a constitutional right

[guruevi]

There is no such thing as a constitutional permit. You have the right to bear arms (typically hand guns for self defense) and free speech anywhere in the US, you don't have the right to shoot everywhere without cause and disturb the peace by screaming. You can't encroach on others property either.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[msauve]

So, does the guy with the more expensive house use more government services which would justify his paying more?

You're saying that paying a percent of value (sales tax is completely different, and a red herring) makes the tax uniform. It doesn't, it means some people pay more than others. Why is that "fair?"

Re:Not a constitutional right

[bluefoxlucid]

There is great danger it seems to me to arise from the constant habit which prevails where anything is opposed or objected to, of referring without rhyme or reason to the Constitution as a means of preventing its accomplishment, thus creating the general impression that the Constitution is but a barrier to progress instead of being the broad highway through which alone true progress may be enjoyed.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[El Cubano]

So, does the guy with the more expensive house use more government services which would justify his paying more?

Not necessarily, but why is that relevant? Taxation has long been established as a means of funding the functioning of government. There is no perfect system, just different trade offs to make. Given that in some cases it is not possible to properly allocate the costs of government services (e.g., transportation infrastructure, the justice system, national defense) to all beneficiaries, some approximation has to be made. Some approximations are more equitable or fair than others.

You're saying that paying a percent of value (sales tax is completely different, and a red herring) makes the tax uniform.

A constant percentage of value is in fact the very definition of a constant tax. By its nature, tax is levied with respect to the value of the thing being taxed. A constant payment without regard to the value of the thing being assessed is a fee or a toll. For example, You can go through a toll booth in Florida in a 1979 Toyota Camry and you will pay $1.25, or you can go through the same toll booth in a 2014 Bugatti Veyron and you will still pay the same $1.25 toll. Fees and tolls are not at issue here.

It doesn't, it means some people pay more than others. Why is that "fair?"

There is a difference between constant rate and constant amount or value. Which is appropriate or fair is situational, just like in calculus.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Whibla]

I thought his meaning was pretty clear from his post, after all he actually included examples of what he meant.

His point: The rate of tax doesn't increase as the value of your property increases.

Your Counter: The amount of tax you pay increases as the value of your property increases.

Not the same thing at all!

Re:Not a constitutional right

[msauve]

"ax is levied with respect to the value of the thing being taxed. A constant payment without regard to the value of the thing being assessed is a fee or a toll."

Odd, that's not how gas taxes work around here.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[El Cubano]

Odd, that's not how gas taxes work around here.

How do they work where you are?

Re:Not a constitutional right

[mysidia]

Vermont mandated that the newspaper you wanted to circulate in Burlington had to offer daily home delivery in Montpelier in order to operate in the state.

That's not analogous to the current situation... It's more like Vermont mandated the installation and maintenance of 550 new Newspaper stands in unserved areas, in order to sign a 11-year contract providing the exclusive monopoly right to continue to operate a few hundred stands which are in the city on public property.

See... Vermont is not telling them WHAT content can or can't be sent over their cables; only effectively what they must do to get to retain their special treatment -- and continue leveraging public property for their own profit.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[msauve]

Cents per gallon. Not based on price at all. I think most states are that way.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[hey!]

Well, just to play devil's advocate, some contracts are unenforceable because by their very nature they're invalid.

In a contract one party agrees to do something (say, hand over a good) in return for a consideration (say, receiving payment in some form). A contract in which a party agreed to do something in return for not being prevented from doing something they had every right to do would likely be ruled unconscionable.

So if laying cable is an act of speech, the government can only restrict it by means narrowly tailored to achieve the specific interest it has in regulating that speech. They could compel Comcast to choose a path for its cable which minimized public nuisance, but I very much doubt they'd be allowed to permit Comcast to do something conditionally on helping them out with some different concern other than nuisance minimization. That is a direct contradiction of what "narrowly tailored" means.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Ichijo]

levying a requirement on one operator and not others strictly because of size is clearly discriminatory.

Yes, but discriminatory or not, eliminating monopolies makes the market work better.

Re: Not a constitutional right

[Vermonter]

>You have the right to bear arms (typically hand guns for self defense) and free speech anywhere in the US

Well most states require a permit to carry a gun, and in some others you need an additional permit just to buy one, so... I don't see how you are correct

Re: Not a constitutional right

[torkus]

Sure...and with that in mind please do try walking through Times Square with a shotgun across your back. Catch up with us in 5-15, 3 with good behavior.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but there are many restrictions placed on otherwise constitutionally protected rights. Speech has held up much better than the right to bear arms. Assembly is somewhere in the middle.

Each of them have their own reasons - some are more justified than others. Restricting gun ownership arbitrarily in each state is stupid. Requiring a permit to stage a large planned protest that will require closure of certain areas or significantly restrict traffic, require security, involve erecting stages, etc. is reasonable to require a permit. Heck, just building a stage requires it's own permit(s) in the first place. These are things where a group of people doing something (the protesters) requires another group or groups (police, general public, cars, vendors, etc.) to take certain actions or be inconvenienced/restricted in some way. So yes, a permit is reasonable if you want to close down a street since you're restricting others from using it.

I do no believe any city has an (enforced/enforceable) restriction on someone standing on a corner holding a sign and telling people about the next coming of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That's reasonable use of public property which the public is entitled to fair use thereof.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[hey!]

What I'm saying is that a permit is not the same thing as a contract.

Re: Not a constitutional right

[Xenx]

Sure...and with that in mind please do try walking through Times Square with a shotgun across your back. Catch up with us in 5-15, 3 with good behavior.

That would all depend, is the gun loaded or are you a resident of NYC? If the answer is no to both, you're in the clear. You'll probably be stopped, at the least, but peaceable journey laws apply.

Not really countering any argument, just pointing it out.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[ChrisMaple]

Please exercise your freedom of assembly in an erupting volcano.

Re: Not a constitutional right

[guruevi]

The right to "...keep and bear arms applies to the States and not 'in a watered-down version' but 'fully applicable'...," and does limit State and local governments in passing laws that restrict this "individual" and "fundamental" right to "...keep and bear arms," for self-defense.

Re: Not a constitutional right

[guruevi]

In New York, open carry of unloaded long guns is not explicitly prohibited by any law. But the SCOTUS decisions applies primarily to handguns which you are permitted to carry anywhere (safely) in the US. You can be cited for having the thing holstered with a loaded bullet in the chamber with your safety off.

The right to free assembly and speech cannot be circumvented by law. You DO NOT need a permit to assemble, you DO NOT need a permit to protest. You DO need a permit to encroach on private property or if you're going to be interrupting regular government functions and that is very narrowly defined and excludes spontaneous protests due to current events.

And yes, you can't just erect structures on public property, but that's irrelevant, if you're planning to have a protest and you're planning on interrupting public services, then a permit is necessary to interrupt said services, you don't need a permit if you manage to have a large group that does not impede other citizens, encroach on private property etc.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[dgatwood]

To TRULY secure your assembly rights to make as much noise as you want, then you need to own enough land to create a secluded venue in the middle of a large-enough fenced-in area outside any HOA land-use restrictions or "planned"/zoned development area, that nobody outside the assembly will have be able to see or have a complaint about what is happening.

Not at all. For far less than that, you can rent any number of semi-public venues like stadium, concert halls, church basements, etc. for an evening during the slow season. Those areas are zoned for large numbers of people, have parking for large numbers of people, and comply with applicable fire codes already.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[dgatwood]

Sure. My mains voltage is 230 kV from midnight to 10 A.M., though, via what looks like a normal outlet, so I don't recommend plugging anything in... or, really, getting anything metal within about a foot of the front of the outlet. Feel free to protest, but do so at your own risk.

Re: Not a constitutional right

[Vermonter]

I fully understand what the Constitution says. But in practice you need permits to bear arms in many places in the US. You're not making any points against what I'm saying... are you trying to say you disagree with the permits required? If that is the case, then fine. But your post really feels like you are trying to insist that in the US you can bear arms anywhere without a permit, and you will not be arrested, and that is simply not true.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[bill_mcgonigle]

Comcast doesn't have a right to the poles either. The way things are now, the PUC controls pole access. If Comcast wants to buy up land everywhere to put its own poles in, you're quite right. If they want to use the government-regulated poles, there are terms-and-conditions. Comcast knows all about terms and conditions.

Re:Not a constitutional right

[Altrag]

Or rent a hall. Or get the permit. As the old saying goes, your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Now you can try to convince people that any particular restriction against assembly isn't actually necessary for public safety or other public concerns and try to get the restriction lifted, but you can't just arbitrarily decide you don't like a rule and break it (well you can -- that's civil disobedience -- but you need to be expecting and willing to face the consequences if you choose to go that route.)

Re: Not a constitutional right

[guruevi]

I quoted fairly recent (2010?) Supreme Court case law for you. It is established in the US that the State does not have the right to limit you to bear small arms by requiring permits (again, not talking about shotguns or long guns aka assault weapons).

Translation...

[__aaclcg7560]

Our CEO can't buy a bigger yacht if we put customers first.

Re:Translation...

[DontBeAMoran]

Trickle-down economics dictate that he should distribute his previous, smaller yacht to poor people first.

Expect to receive a 1x1 inch piece of yacht by mail within two to three months.

Re:Translation...

[JackieBrown]

I think either you don't understand trickle down economics or you are under the impression that the yacht was built buy other rich CEOs

concast cable We don't care about the law.

[Joe_Dragon]

concast cable We don't care about the law. and we have IPTV channels that you need to rent our box to get and do not work with your cable card.

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?

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

[currently_awake]

Breach of contract means end of contract. Put the (new) contract out to bid and let all the cable companies bid on it.

Constitutional Rights

[CastrTroy]

violating state law and Comcast's constitutional rights

The Constitution of the United States does not protect "corporations", but only "persons", "the people", and "citizens". Enough of this granting protection to corporations. Corporations are a construction of the government and only exist to serve the people.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[Zak3056]

violating state law and Comcast's constitutional rights

The Constitution of the United States does not protect "corporations", but only "persons", "the people", and "citizens". Enough of this granting protection to corporations. Corporations are a construction of the government and only exist to serve the people.

The scenario you propose would imply that the New York Times, a corporate entity, should not enjoy the protections offered by the first amendment. Corporations are not people, but people acting in concert should have the same rights as people acting separately.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[jbengt]

Corporations are not people, but people acting in concert should have the same rights as people acting separately.

They should then also have the same obligations & duties as people acting separately. So get rid of the limited liability of corporate owners, and I'd be willing to treat a corporation as people. But since that isn't going to happen, I don't think it's right to treat a corporation to all the rights & privileges people have.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[ChrisMaple]

It is neither rational, nor just, nor good for the economy to have stockholders liable for the actions of corporate executives that they cannot control in any meaningful manner. Corporate executives should be liable for any criminal activities they undertake in the corporation's name.
Making corporate owners liable for the actions of a corporation's executives makes as much sense as making the residents of a town liable for the actions of the town's mayor.

Re:Constitutional Rights

[dgatwood]

The scenario you propose would imply that the New York Times, a corporate entity, should not enjoy the protections offered by the first amendment. Corporations are not people, but people acting in concert should have the same rights as people acting separately.

Well, yes and no. Although the New York Times does enjoy the protection of the first amendment, it definitely does not and should not enjoy the same first amendment protection as an individual would. Commercial speech is given much less protection than other forms of speech. It is the least protected form of speech. One reason for this is that the power of a group of individuals is much greater than the power of a single individual. Because the harm that can be done by using that power irresponsibly is much greater, the presumption of responsibility for the consequences of doing so is also much greater, and the governmental limits on such speech are thus significantly more strict.

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]

..like Vermont has the money for that...

I suspect that the States intent was to get Comcast to wire up the islands in Lake Champlain, the so called "Grand Isles." The smallest of these islands has about 500 people living on it with the largest having about 2000 people living on it.

Of course, the people on these islands would already have a satellite solution for television if they wanted it and one of the lake's WISP (Wireless ISP) solutions for internet as well.

Re:Solution!

[vtTom]

Vermont's largest city, Burlington, has done it, and it's been a big headache... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Solution!

[squiggleslash]

I honestly think that'd be a better solution. I'm a little bothered by Vermont's decision to make renewal dependent upon this kind of obligation. While I'm no fan of Comcast, I honestly think we need to be immensely careful on how we regulate infrastructure companies. If the government's belief is that private enterprise cannot do the job, the solution isn't to hack on a set of obligations to an entity that requires profits to be sustainable, it should instead be filling in the gaps.

This kind of over-regulation is, in part, what killed the railroads in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At the time it was just assumed you could pack mandate on top of mandate with that industry because the companies were large and superficially profitable. The railroads were forced to continue services that had no chance of profitability, and were put through bureaucratic hurdles so huge that they actually started running down profitable services that they thought might become unprofitable, just so that the paperwork could start to get them closed.

If Comcast wasn't so unpopular, we wouldn't have so many fans on Slashdot of forcing them to do this. But I honestly don't think it's a good idea. Let's see Vermont fund its own infrastructure. They could even tax Comcast and other telecommunications franchisees to pay for it.

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:Solution!

[ChrisMaple]

2000 people is 0.3% of the population of Vermont. On the face of it, it's not an unreasonable request.

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.

Re:Network Investment

[Calydor]

Especially one that says to install 50 miles of it per year.

I mean come on, 550 miles over 11 years is NOTHING.

turnaround

[jm007]

Customer: the terms are hideously one-sided and I have no other options
Comcast: you signed it and a contract is a contract; no backing out, you have obligations

Comcast: the terms are hideously one-sided and I have no other options
VT: you signed it and a contract is a contract; no backing out, you have obligations

Comcast: you don't have the authority to do that!

no need for more to be said

Re:turnaround

[DontBeAMoran]

This is probably the most simple argument you could present in court so that EVERYONE can understand how Comcast are acting.

Re:turnaround

[SCVonSteroids]

You're right, but they'll probably still end up winning anyways.

monopoly..

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they hold a monopoly type position in the city? If yes a requirement like this should be in the contract.
Did they agree the contract? If yes they should comply with the agreed requirements or loose the right to operate in the city.

But i do think that fiber should be considered a part of the city-infrastructure on the same level as gas/power/water/sewage .. Companies could then rent bandwidth from their closest connection-point to the customer.. No need for 10 companies to dig down their own cables (reducing amount of wasted money) and at the same time allowing loads of companies to compete for the customers.

Re:monopoly..

[Topwiz]

I live in Vermont. The city of Burlington (pop 39,000) has a municipal cable service. Only nine cities/towns have over 10,000 people. While there are a few small operators in other parts of the state, Comcast is the only one authorized statewide.

Re:monopoly..

[JackieBrown]

Do they hold a monopoly type position in the city? If yes a requirement like this should be in the contract.
Did they agree the contract? If yes they should comply with the agreed requirements or loose the right to operate in the city.

I agree with the second part you said.

The first part... government has created this problem. I really tired of governments getting to create a problem then grab even more power to fix a problem they created (like HCR)

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:Public property

[msauve]

"Equal protection" is tricky. There are lots of cases where entities are treated differently. When the President comes to town, they shut down highways and give him a police escorted motorcade to and from the airport. I don't get that, even if I'm late for my flight.

Vermont's response can be a simple "We impose this requirement on the largest provider, so all providers are treated equally. If you give up market share so you're not the largest provider, then the burden would shift. It's not specific to Comcast."

Re:Public property

[drew_kime]

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.

That suggests a fair resolution. Since they no longer like the terms of the contract, then they don't have to build the 550 miles of additional cabling. And in return - because this is contract law, so there's always consideration - all they have to do is remove any existing cabling from public infrastructure.

Hmm, I wonder how much that would cost them ...

Re:Public property

[Calydor]

Fine, make the new cable installs be defined by market share.

Comcast has to lay 50 miles of cable per year and have, let's assume 95% market share. The other providers can lay the last few inches.

Remove their monopoly privilege

[BenJeremy]

Fine, don't want to play nice? Then the state should open up any area where Comcast operates to the free market (and state it that way, to confuse and bother the corrupt republicans who will undoubtedly try and block it)

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:Welcome to Bernie Sanders version of hell

[Opportunist]

So I guess you would say that opening the market and allowing everyone to compete with Comcast would definitely be a good thing.

Re:Welcome to Bernie Sanders version of hell

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure Comcast is the one selling our information to the spooks, not Bernie. In fact, I believe he was one of the small minority that didn't vote for the Patriot Act.

Re:Welcome to Bernie Sanders version of hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, removing the political barriers to entry in the ISP market would be a very good thing. Exposing the local judiciary to the services of each local ISP in a clear and explicit manner would also help when it comes to how they interpret certain disputes.

I'm also starting to think that we need a legislative declaration or judiciary precedent on what constitutes the minimum amount of competition to qualify as a "marketplace" rather than a monopoly. Once such a concept is established, localities can refer to that when a company with a local monopoly demands to be treated as part of a marketplace.

Freedom of speech argument!?

[91degrees]

I realise these lawsuits tend to be a case of throwing everything at it and seeing what sticks, but even by these standards, some of this is taking the piss a bit..

Solution: Eliminate the Cable companies

[LeftCoastThinker]

Solution:

Step 1: Update the terms to require all Vermont cable companies to install an extension into rural areas based on their available subscriber base (if Comcast has 90% of Vermont and has to do 550miles, then a cable company that has 1% must run 5.5 miles). Now there is no discrimination between companies, it is a fair percentage.

Step 2: Put into the license that Comcast has 10 days to comply or their cable monopolies will be revoked and their equipment seized by the state of Vermont. Comcast will be reimbursed value on the equipment based on the remaining amortized value of said equipment based on Comcast prior tax year (Hint: most of the cable company's equipment has been completely amortized for years, meaning it is completely paid off, and it's use life has already ended, though the companies continue to charge consumers out the ass for the use of this equipment because they are a monopoly).

Step 3: In every county, allocate the seized hardware to a municipal non-profit who are responsible for proving service, and who are run by a manager who is accountable to a 5 elected citizen review board on 2 year staggered terms. All employees of these non profits cannot be paid more than industry standard wages for their positions, but they are eligible for 40% bonuses every year, based on a matrix that accounts for up-time vs downtime, average customer speed vs national average speed, customer satisfaction surveys, actual operating spending vs budgeted spending, annual reviews etc. with various weighting of the factors based on the employee's position and the importance of the factor. The bonus equation factors and weighting can be changed once per year to set goals for the year. When negotiating rates for cable content or backbone access, all of the non-profit cable companies negotiate as a single entity for the strongest bargaining power.

Step 4: Enjoy the locally owned and operated cable non profit nirvana that is still accountable and responsive to local customers with local accountability that harnesses inherent human greed to motivate it's employees to provide responsive, quality service at a price likely less than half what the cable company charges now.

Comcast shouldn't have signed the contract

[zifn4b]

I'd like to get out of the terms of my mortgage agreement too. Suck it Comcast. Remember corporations are people. That's how you slime bags wanted it. Enjoy!

Re:Math

[PPH]

multiply that by 2.904e+6.

Or 2.904e+3. Which is 550 * 5280 / 1000.

Slashdot: It was my understanding that there would be no math.

Re:Math

[Headw1nd]

How on earth did you fuck up the math that badly? The number you are looking for is 58 million, not 58 billion. C'mon man, simple logic should tell you you're wrong. Comcast is in the business of laying cables, correct? So their assets, in part, would be those buried cables. By your estimate, Comcast would own less than 2000 miles of buried cable, total. But somehow you got through that entire second half of the post without noticing your numbers were insane.

is destroyed*New* cable lines? Seriously?

[hackel]

The government should be *outlawing* the construction of any new cable lines, not mandating it! What is going on here? If it was requiring them to lay fiber, I could totally get behin them, but the notion of putting that much additional garbage coax in the ground in 2017 makes me sick. The cable industry is dying, and its old infrastructure is insufficient for modern internet needs. Since soon all media will be delivered via the internet, it really is a no-brainer.

Still, Comcast needs to shut the fuck up. Corporations need to have all of their "rights" stripped away. Corporations are allowed to operate at the pleasure of the people. Period. If they don't like it, they can leave Vermont or shut down entirely.

Vermonh has Several Choices

[bobstreo]

Fine Comcast $500 per day per mile uncompleted.

Tell Comcast what their early contract termination is going to cost them.

Or both.

You just don't understand

[rsilvergun]

This is all about freedom. Sure, they _want_ to spend the money, but they want the freedom _not_ to spend the money. And sure, it's a freedom they have exercised in the past and continue to exercise. But what good are freedoms if you don't exercise them?

So really, you should feel bad for questioning such Great Patriots as our American (tm) Cable Companies. It's Ok, just write some anti-Net Neutrality comments to apologize.

I don't think that'll work

[rsilvergun]

Comcast has a huge head start. They can drop prices and run anyone out of business they want. Then they can buy up their former competitors for a song.

Like most public utilities Telecom doesn't really work in a free market sense. It's too expensive to get started but once you do you're entrenched.

Re:I don't think that'll work

[im_thatoneguy]

And the city can say "You may no longer use our utility poles." And then Comcast would have to spend an absurd amount of money to move their cable lines, negotiate with land-owners for right of way and have to do all of that while competitors buy up the old utility line rights. More likely that would lead to Comcast selling their cables to someone with a utility pole lease and exiting the business.

Re:is destroyed*New* cable lines? Seriously?

[nnet]

The government should be *outlawing* the construction of any new cable lines, not mandating it! What is going on here? If it was requiring them to lay fiber, I could totally get behin them, but the notion of putting that much additional garbage coax in the ground in 2017 makes me sick.

What said every inch of comcast network is coax?
What said it was all underground?

The cable industry is dying, and its old infrastructure is insufficient for modern internet needs. Since soon all media will be delivered via the internet, it really is a no-brainer.

What said its revenue was solely based on providing TV content?
They have an Internet backbone network that provides access to millions that use it to consume media. Over the Internet.

Still, Comcast needs to shut the fuck up. Corporations need to have all of their "rights" stripped away. Corporations are allowed to operate at the pleasure of the people. Period. If they don't like it, they can leave Vermont or shut down entirely.

Granted, greed hurts.
Here's an idea, why don't you start a grassroots movement about how you think things should be.

I'm with Comcast on this one

[slasher999]

If it made financial sense from a business perspective Comcast would lay the cable. Clearly Comcast doesn't see a ROI as an outcome of what Vermont is mandating so why should they spend company (and investor) funds on a bs initiative like this? Typical politicians overreaching their authority because they can get away with it.

Re:I'm with Comcast on this one

[virtig01]

If Comcast doesn't see the expected ROI, they shouldn't sign the contract with the state.

Re:I'm with Comcast on this one

[f00zbll]

the article indicates they signed the contract and now want to muscle their way out of certain parts of the agreement. how predictable of comcast.

Learn to READ

[Joviex]

".... may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted."

We understand in the age of selfish morons with a platform thinking they must voice everything as fact, but did you fail comprehensive reading class in school?

MAY BE is not WILL or MUST.

Of course, well, there was that

[cmaurand]

whole bit where, you know, the lawyers, poured over all the contracts and then the bit where Comcast then signed them thereby agreeing to the 550 miles of cable plant. Comcast has no standing. I'm sure there are other cable companies that would take the gig.

Re:AMerica. Worst internet in the world !

[jabuzz]

Really since when has 1609m been about 2km? Oh and I live in Scotland large parts of which have very low population densities comparable with much of rural USA (well excepting Alaska) and the Scottish government plan is universal 30Mbps by end of 2020 from memory.

Same problem here in Maryland ....

[King_TJ]

The state is big enough so some parts have other options, but Comcast is really the only state-wide broadband provider. We *should* have Verizon FiOS as competition out here, except Verizon has long considered that entire service a loss leader designed to meet obligations that let them collect big subsidies they could largely pocket with big pay raises for execs. (Any time you see FiOS service available out here in a smaller community, follow the money. There's always some high ranking Verizon exec who happens to live there.)

Last I heard, they were trying to sell FiOS off to be operated by some other telco. That seems like it could be a good thing, if true.... but so far, no evidence the whole thing isn't retaining the Verizon branding and their same restrictions on which neighborhoods are actually served by it.