Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Sues Vermont Over Conditions On New License Requiring the Company To Expand Its Network (vtdigger.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from VTDigger: Cable television giant Comcast is suing the Vermont Public Utility Commission over the panel's decision to require the company to expand its network and step up support for community access TV if it wants to continue doing business in Vermont. A key issue is the services Comcast must provide to local community access systems that carry municipal government and school board meetings and other local events. The 26 community access systems have been pushing -- against resistance by Comcast -- for high-definition video, greater ability to operate from remote locations, and inclusion in the interactive program guides that Comcast customers can use to decide what to watch. The PUC -- formerly known as the Public Service Board -- in January issued a new 11-year permit for Comcast to operate in Vermont. In July the panel rejected the company's request to drop some of the conditions attached to the permit.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Burlington, Comcast argued that the PUC "exceeded its authority under federal and Vermont law" by imposing "numerous conditions on Comcast's continued cable operations in the state that are arbitrary, unprecedented and will ultimately harm local cable subscribers by resulting in millions of dollars in increased cable costs." It said the commission "did so despite overwhelming record evidence that Vermont cable subscribers do not want to incur any additional costs or fees for the kinds of conditions imposed" in the commission's January order.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Burlington, Comcast argued that the PUC "exceeded its authority under federal and Vermont law" by imposing "numerous conditions on Comcast's continued cable operations in the state that are arbitrary, unprecedented and will ultimately harm local cable subscribers by resulting in millions of dollars in increased cable costs." It said the commission "did so despite overwhelming record evidence that Vermont cable subscribers do not want to incur any additional costs or fees for the kinds of conditions imposed" in the commission's January order.
Really what is sounds like to me is that Comcast wants all the advantages of their government granted monopoly and none of the requirements.
It's time to cut government granted monopolies loose. The Comcast deal with real competition in all areas. The don't seem to be able to deal with it in any other area, so now they have chosen the court system.
I am tired of hearing about how great corporatism is when the "free market" is thrown out the window and companies like this go whining to the courts and to their reps when things do not go their way. If they want to champion corporatism let them die from it as well.
Comcast enjoys a virtual monopoly providing internet service in Vermont, thanks to a sweetheart deal with the State that was recently extended by 11 years.
It kind of makes you wonder why the State would make such a poor deal?? Outside of Burlington, there is no city with a population greater than 20,000... making it pretty much all last mile service.
Not to defend Comcast by any means, but the market in the State is meager enough that market protections like competition are not present. Perhaps these smaller States could give up a bit of sovereignty and band together to create a market providers could compete for.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
For the same reason the government gets to regulate your power company. When you fight hard to become a monopoly, don't be surprised when you are suddenly heavily regulated.
Perhaps only pay $389 million rather then $400 million for the stadium naming rights? All over N. America the communications companies seem to have endless money for advertising but no money for customer support or expanding infrastructure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
If you pay as much as I do for Comcast service ($250/month), the day they break up Comcast's government permitted monopoly will indeed be a great day.
We have to keep in mind that like other cable operators, Comcast is essentially a monopoly in the communities that they serve. This being the case, local and state governments have every right to regulate them and impose conditions on their operation. Indeed, indirectly as a taxpayer I provide them access to public right-aways, so I expect that I should get something for my money or be in a position to have another cable company come in and do the job.
I've been tracking their service for a number of years now. There are several things that can be noticed that bear directly on what unregulated monopoloies can get away with.
1) they are increasing the number of channels, but 95% of these are purely advertisment/sales only operations. No programming just sales.
2) their scheduled progamming includes networks that steadily increase the number of commercials per hour without any recourse for the consumer to pay only for the channels used. Thus they get extra advertising dollars at my expense as a consumer.
3) they provide almost no public services for local and state governments and local NGO's and other groups to present alternative views so they heavily censor potentially alternative views in the "market". Likewise, they have almost no truly educational channels, say that teach science, geography, literature, social studies, etc. The few that do have limited input into scheduling or time alotments.
4) They force you to choose viewing plans that provide you no choice, but to pay extra for an incredible number of channels I would never watch. They benefit because it makes it seems they are providing more, but in reality they are merely charging more for useless product. Let those who want to watch the shopping channels pay for the priviledge. As a captive consumer, I should be able to decline paying for them, even when I don't watch them.
5) they are providing less and less quality programming for the "basic service" (ie access to networks) dumbing it down and forcing viewers to pay for "premium" services just to have anything worth watching at all.
6) they give a lot of money as a government monopoly to political candidates that support their vested interest, skewing and disadvantaging public discourse.
I say that the laws governing local cable monopolies need to be revised, so that local governments can establish their own services and develop efforts to insure that every part of the country has true competition in the cable markets. We need to move away from monopolies. If monopolies are essential, then they should be government run monopoloies that taxpayers have a direct voice in how they are run.
It's about time that public utility regulators are replaced with office holders that put some pressure on cable company monopolies to do something other than parasitize their customers. Otherwise,its time to vote out the current crop and replace them with more progressive minded citizens, who actually represent the public rather than the cable company monopolies.