Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the back-and-forth dept.

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."

6 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Well Comcast should have read the TOS by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Well Comcast should have read the TOS by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."

      --
      ~X~
  2. Not a constitutional right by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not a constitutional right by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  3. Network Investment by anomalous3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. turnaround by jm007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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