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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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: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.